ju Patan fe Pras ete Rete Rt sO Fe mae een, eee 
ote ym Rory ote te! Ee 


(ete ton nieine intatenn Nerina 
aoe anne 


ae Rahn tete se “phe 
Tettp netomat ater ene! ote 
rete het fins Oe tm 


DUKE 
UNIVERSITY © 


LIBRARY 


ee a 
hy, eee 


rh ¥ ee Ont 


Phe. 


vy * ip,” Marnewe Obfervations ’ 
-"* : 2 


* 


» 


2 ae a ON THE ; 
“Soren” PAND + coftpyct | 
OF THE ‘ 


Bogie TY for the propagation off the Cofp 


r¥ in “foreign a 


Interfpers’d’ with a. facia brief reflections upon fome other of ad 
“Docror’s Writings. y 


4% i 


ec ey eich “is added, 
ie Rte . 
‘ i 


ME TIER: to a FRinnp,y 


Containing a fhort Vindication of the faid SocfreTy © 
again{t the Miltakes’ and Mifreprefentations of the Dogtor in hig 
hes a on the Condué of that Society. 


Ci Qen &. Vm “" 
* By one of i its Members * *. 


1S 
JN 


ies w aff ‘i 
4 


» Where envying and ftrife is, there is Pat and every evil work 


Out of the fame mouth proceedeth’” bleffing and curfing. Myyy 
7 brethren, thee things ought not fo to be, James iil, 16. 10, 


_ i ee ee, 
, | rs * 4 ¥ 

‘BOSTON, NEWeENGLAND: ‘ 

Print ed and Sold by Tuomas and Joun Furet, in Cornhill and 
Green & Ru@terrsyand Epes & Cuts in Qneenfreets. 17638 


eo 
‘ 
ij 
‘ Set 


See 


Div. S. 


The CONTENTS.445)5 


ex 


foo 


Hn 
v} | 
’ 


y tr dE reafon why Dr. Mayhew’s Obfervations were 


not fully anfwered before. page I- 
The author’s charitable defign in the prefent publication. me 
The method he propofes in this examination. ibid. 
Does not purpofe to confine himfelf to the obfervations. ibid. 


The Dr’s defcription of controverfial writers apply’d tohimfelf. ibid. 
Inftances of a candid temper in the Dr. 


Requefts the candor of his readers. pee | 
How far this is allowed. 4. 
The Dr’s. defign. ibid. 


Attempts to prove the Society have counteradted the defign 


of their inftitution. “a 
That they are guilty of a wilful abufe of their truft. ibid. 
Denies it again. 6. Prov’d upon him. 6. 
Charges the miffionaries with abufing the Society. ‘ibid. 


This pretence refuted. 
Will not allow the Society to underftand the ftate of religion 


in the plantations. ibid. 
This point examined and refuted. 10. 
The Society prov’d to underfland the ftate of religion, &c. 

and alfo their charter. 16. 
The Dr. beholden to Mr. Hobart for moft of his obfervations, 19. 
Yet takes no notice of Mr. Beach’s reply to Mr. Hobart. 20. 
The Dr’s interpretation of the Society’s charter examined 

and fhewn to be inconfiftent. ibid. 
His argument from King William refuted. 22. 


His other teftimonies in favour of bis interpretation nothing 
to his purpofe. e. 


The name and title of the Society confidered. 39. 
Their common feal. 41. Their fermons. 4s 
True defign of the charter, to which the foregoing teftimonies _ 

are conformable. > Ae 
And to the Society’s condu. 43. 
The word orthodox not properly apply’d to. diffenters. pis" 
In common ufe denotes the eftabiifhment. ibid. 
Eftablifhments examined. 26. 
New-England churches not eftablifhed. a7. 
Proved from their own confeffion. ibid. 
hie aletter of the Lords Juftices to Lt. Gov' Dummer. 28. 
from the Dr’s own method of arguing. Be: 
The church of England eftablifhed in the colonies. 43: 
ive proved by aural ats of parliament and particularly 

y the act of union. 34. 
An objection anfwered. HAO 4 0 6 38. 


From the King’s granting the ecclefiaftical jurifdiGion of 
the plantations to tre Bishop of London, 30. 


cr 


Soap 


‘The co NTENTS. Feaee 
Some farther reflcAtioris on the extent of the charter and t 
condu& of the Society. “A0: 
Why few miffionaries were early fent into New-Englaad. “ibid. 
Obje&tions againft the Society for Pian: the Indians 


and the other colonies anfwered. 44. 
Much hindered by a party fpirit. ibid. 
Two or three inftances mentioned. : 
In many of the colonies religion fupported by the civil 

government. 46. 


Account of the firft adventurers to N. E. with their chara@ter. ibid. 

The Dr. no right to plead their merit, who has departed 
from their. principles. 47. 

Early adventurers of two forts. gr. 

Maflachufetts- Bay fettled by church of Rnglasd men. 

Proved from their own letter dated on board the Arabella 


at their leaving England. 50. 
Rev. Mr. Prince’s teftimony to the fame purpofe. cx: 
Did not leave England on account of perfecution. 52. 
The Dr. accufes the Ch. of England asa perfecuting church. 54. 
‘This examined and reply’d to. 54. 
Récriminations would be eafy. * ibid. 


Two or three inftances hinted at. ; 55. 
_ TheDr’s writings have a fendency to beget a perfecuting fpirit. 57. 
Labours to prejudice people againft Bithops by fpeaking rudely — 

* \ and contemptibiy of that Order. 

The indecency of this’as they are an order of men eftablifhed 
from the beginning of Chriftianity, and received or vene- - 
rated by foreign prcteftants at this day. 60. 

Calvin's teftimony in favor of that order. 60. and Beza’s. 61. 

The Dr's. ridicule of the liturgy of the Ch. of England fhewn 


to be indecent by the opinion of foreign churches. 62. 
Summary reprefentation of the controverfy. 64. 
The Drs. ho/proper méthod to rectify ae if the Society 

have committed any. 66. 
The publifhing an open account of the fice of the other 

Society more proper to effect this. "67. 


Rev.Mr. Wheelock’s Indian charity {chool recommended. | 68. 
The Dr, has no right to complain of any — expreffion 
ufed by the “author. 69. 
This fhewn from a fpecimen of his own lanes taken from 
his obfervations and fermons. 70. 
Aferious addre{s to the rev.Gentlemen of the miniftry atBofton. ie 


The Dr. drolls upon the Song of Solomon.) _ 79. 
Gives countenance to the doétrine of annihilation. ibid. 
Til confequence of his writings to civil government.’ ibid 
This not the general temper ‘of people in the colonies. 80. 


Conclufien. : ibid 


ee ae ae a Fs ied Agids -' oh olelbal at 
2 veg Ay rf ONT uta ita? $ 9 Jag 
A Candid Examination of Dr. Maysew’s 
Obfervations on the Chatter and''Condu& 
of the Society for the Propagation of the 
Gofpel in Foreign Parts, G0. 1:0 oved 


{ 


ys 
ht } 

pl 0, © Seat ; ; 3 ains 

Eh DO DOO IOC OOK PPIOOOAIIOG OSORIO M 

aids . 4id 


WT is:a long time fince Dr. Mayuew publithed 
his modef obfervations, on the charter and con- 

™ duct of the Society for the propagation of the 
Gofpel in foreign parts; and as no perfon hitherto 
has thought ir worth his while to enter into a,fpes’ 
cial examination of his principal argument; he pro+ 
bably concluded that his performance, would not 
pane met,with a full reply.And_ in, truth if;-he 
ad drawn this conclufion from: the natureyand 
maoner.of his writing, ‘as being too jintemperately 
manag’d to deferve the notice of either a Gentieman 
ora Scholar, he had thought as other men do.;.for 
this, it has been faid is the true.reafon; why he, has 
been fuffer’d to triumph thus longin his Saas 
and torboaft of tas unanfwerable. Every gentle- 
man who has had a liberal and‘polite education; 
thinks it beneath his chara@ter to enter the lifts with 
pne who obferves no meafures of decency,or good 
nners, nay who does not fcruple to facrifice the 
eek and gentle f{pirit of the Gofpel to the gratifi- 
ation of a licentious and ungovern'd temper. Nor 
oes the author of the prefent remarks pretend to 
tval him in this unbecoming talent; herein he is al- 


 BA4YOTIO6 _lowd 


( 2°9 


Jow'd to reign without a competitor. But fince he 
is liable to “ think more highly of himfelf than he 
ought to think,” and is already unhappily. “ wifer in 
_Bis-own Conceit,” than in any ones elfe; it may be 
eftcem’d an act of charity to give him jufter notions 
both of himfelf, and of his writings in general, but 
sécially of his late performance, than he feems to 
have entertain’d. ore a ae 
THE method which will be ufed in difcharging 
this charitable office, will be to reprefent the Doétor 
fometimes in the meek and benevolent light in which 
he affeéts to be confidered ; at other times, and by 
ray of contraft to this, he will be produced in_ the 
ght in which he has really exhibited himfelf: For 
altho” thefe are toto ccelo different, yet without a 
juft and impartial reprefentation of him in both thefe 
refpetts, it will be impoffible to give him a true 
knowledge of himfelf, which is a point the author 
is very folicitous of; and is not without reafonable 
hopes of accomplifhing. is a Ab 
“To this purpofe the author propofes to confult 
¢ Doétor’s writings in general, which, as they are 
fufficiently voluminous, will afford abundant matter 
for fuch a reprefentation, and being all of them 
corrected with his own hand, and fent abroad by 
his own appointment, may fairly be conceived to be 
a genuiné picture of the man. Resa vtitridat 
~ It will be proper to begin with his laft and high- 
ly boafted piece, entitled Ob/ervations on the charte 
and conduct of the Society, &c. tan 
to which begins with thefe rema ) 2 
There are fome men who write—controverf} 
“merely from a wrangling difpofition, without an 
“regard to truth, right, or the importance of th 
“matters conteftcd.” Now one may defy an 
br! cite ppal ha, 


@ Zz) 

man who fhall read this paflage, and elpecially if he 
has read two or three volumes of fermons publifhed’, 
in Bofton fince the year 1754, and fome occafionak: 
thankfgiving difcourfes, in almoft every one of which 
matters off controverfy have been dragg’d in, tho” 
for the moft part as it were by head and fhoulders ; 
I fay, I defy any fuch man, not to think of one 
who» ftiles himfelf paflor of the weft church im 
Bofton. And no doubt every one will be ready to 
joinwith the Dr. in the words immediately followings 
“ that this isa turnof mind unbecoming a chriftian.” 
And had _ he not been too unhappily: inattentive ‘to 
his own maxim as before cited, doubtlefs he would 
here have dropp’d his pen. .” But fome of - his 
“ friends” too ‘‘ partial” indeed “ in his favor” injus 
dicioufly prevented him from profiting by his own. 
admonition, having it feems “expreffed a defire that” 
notwithitanding “‘ his” great “ averfion to controverfy 
**—he would—communicate /ome of his thoughts 
* to the public, on the point in queftion.” + 

In the 8th page of his obfervations, the Doétor 
affects to be very candid and ingenuovs. “ He is ~ 
“ fenfible” he fays, “ that the Society are a very re 
“ fpectable Body, and to be treated with all the 
“ regard that is confiftent with truth and juftice— 
“ he declares it is by no means his intention to 
“ charge that venerable Body with any wi/ful known 
“ mifconduét, or improper application of monies.” 
This is very commendable, if he had but kept it in 
mind through the whole of his polite inquiry ;. but 
as though he was fenfible he fhould very foon break 
through the aforefaid equitable rule, ‘ he requefts 
* the candor of his readers, that no advantage may 
“be taken of any zncautious expreffion that may 
- efeape him in the purfuit of his argument, even 

aes, “ tho’ 


C 4) 

tho’ it fhould at fi? view, have the appearance of 

“¢ fuch an accufation.” }- This however isa reafon- 
ablepoftulatum) and therefore it is not propofed, 
nay,' the author hereby promifes the gentleman'that 
he will not take advantage of one or even of twa: 
incautions expreflions, that appear undefignedly to 
have efcaped him, if at firft view only they havethe 
baré appearance of fuck an-aceufation ; but then he 
cannot extend the fame indulgence to ‘very many 
expreffions importing a charge of wilful known mif- 
condué, and improper application »of monies ; 
_ efpecially, if nor-only at the: firfiview, but on a 

fecond and third view, they do mot appear to have 
merely efcaped him, but were manifeftly intended 
to fupport fuch an‘accufation. *Much tefs will he 
be. iittled to this indulgence, if it fhall appear tha» 
_ the Society are direétly charged by him with mifap- 
plication of the monies committed ‘to their ruft, in 
numerous paflages of his book, but moreover,-that 
the ‘gerteral defign of it was, ane hay pale: 
this very point. 


- THe Dr.’s book is cnitelba “ “Oblervations on the 
i eater and conduét of the Society, &ce. défigned 
“to fhew their non-conformity to each other.” In 
fupport of this title, after fometimes contracting, 
then ftretching and wire-drawing the fenfe of the 
charter, feal, &c. of the Society, he concludes’ that 
the /ole defi ign of their inftitution was to propagat 
‘the’ gofpel among the heathen, or in‘ thofe ‘colonies 
; whofe religious ftate was, and according to him; now 
is, little better than heathenifm. But this which he 
afferts ‘to be the‘laudable and only defign > 
infticution, aoe a he fays, nt: Prodare qn 


abufed. | | ae ae 
[Piss gu t in to sivhwo ou) ad 
ag ll “Tavs 
4 Obfervations P. 8, 


(2 
Tipus iin page 55, he fays'“‘ the Society have maz 
“ nifefted a fufficient forwardnefs to‘encourage ang 
“ inereafe fmalb difattected «parties: in our. towns, 
spon an application to them.’’. -And in-thei97th 
page he weprefents the Society as hoping that-thefe 
finall parties will by their: influence’ gradually bring 
on a general fubmiffion to an epifcopal fovereign ; an 
“affirms that this has long been>the:formal defign 
“ of the Society, and is the true’ plan ee a 
“myftery of their :operations’in New-England.” 
_ovEy his 106th page he tells us that the “affair of 
“« Bifhops in America, « has’ been a favourite obje® 
“withthe Society,” and°in tthe next page, that 
“ the Society {pare neither endeavours, applications, 
“nor expence, in order to effec their grand defign 
“ of epycapizing all New-England,” ‘and a few lines 
further, ‘* The Sdciety have long had a formal defign 
to! difflolve and root out: all’ our New-England 
“ churches.—This (he fays) fully and cleatly ace 
counts for their being fo ready to encourage fmall 
** epifcopak partics all over New-England, by fend- 
“ing them ‘miflionaries.” In page 110 he affirms 
that “the Society have been expending large fums 
“every year in New-England, quite beyond the defign 
“ of their inftitution, to {apport and increafe the epif- 
“ copal party as fuch.” In the fame page he charges 
the Society with robbing the heathen to eafe and 
gratify the epifcopalians here; 'and forms this conclu- 
fion:upon his foregoing reprefentations, that “the 
“ Society are’ guilty of a flagrant abufe of a noble 
*inftitution.” And in the 112th page, that ‘they 
have “alienated their revenues from a truly noble 
“ to a comparatively mean, narrow, party defign.” 
“After thefe feveral direct and plain accufations of the 
Society as abufing their truft, and mifapplying the 
Pe 


moncy 


ee 4 


money put into their hands, he wipes his mouth 
again, and abfurdly enough aflures his reader, that: 
* he wonld by no means be underftood as charging 
** fo refpeftable a Body with any wilful criminal 
“ abufe.of power, or mifapplication of monies.” i.e. 
he would. not have the reader believe him ; for that 
is the fenfe of his words, as they ftand conneéted 
with what went before, if indeed they have any 
fenfe.at all in them. — er 
Wu, he now have the firmne/s to. affert, that 
all the expreffions and paflages which have been 
here’ quoted (and five times as many more might 
have been added) are only cncautious exprefions, 
that inadvertently ¢/caped 4zm, that they are not de- 
figned as matter of accufation, and that if poflibly 
they have fuch an appearance, it is only at firft view ? 
If he fhould affert this, 1 am perfuaded his friends 
at leaft muft bluth for him. Is the fupporting {mall 
parties. in, New-England, in order to facilitate the 
affair of epz/copizing the colonies, the formal defign 
of the Society, to which they give their chief atten- 
tion, and to which the largeft part of their fund is 
applied ? Can he affert all this, and yet fay that he 
does not charge that venerable Body “ with any 
“ wilful known mifconduét, or improper application 
“© of monies” ? ; 153 
| Pernuars this confffent reafoner will chufe to fay 
that the Society, are mifled, and. form their plan 
upon the mifreprefentations of their wicked miffio- 
naties., Something like.this is aflerted in a note 
upon .a thanfgiving fermon on the reduction of 
Canada, preached.and publithed by him in the year 
1760. “It is probable that they [the Society] have 
“ been grofsly impofed upon by falfe.reprefentations 
* of the ftate of religion in thefe parts, le 
hi sii ; * been 


ee a a 


been the occafion of their employing fo much of 
“ their charitable care about’ thofe who fo little need 
* ed it, to the neglect of thofe who were perifhing 
“ for want of it: For which impofitions, abufes and 
“« mifapplications, their deceivers are anfwerable ; if 
“not to them, yet certainly to an HIGHER’ AUH 
“ rHoRITY.” But furely whatever reprefentations 
—thefé miffionaries have made; the Society mutt 
_ judge whether the complying with fuch reprefenta- 
tions was, or was not confiftent with their charter ; 
fo that notwithftanding his ftriving to palliate ‘his 
accufation of the Society, by cafting the odium: of 
a pretended mifapplication of their charity on the 
miffionaries, the flander will ftill remain where ‘he at. 
firft placed it, on the Society themfelves. Befides, the 
members of the Society are notall of them'utterly 
unacquainted with the plantations ;) fome of them 
have heretofore, and others do even now refide in 
moft of the governments upon the continent, (New- 
England not excepted) many of them not inconfi- 
derable for ‘their ftation, wifdom and ‘integrity. 
-Thefe gentlemen muft therefore be alfo in a combi- 
nation with the miffionaries to abufe the world,and: 
mifapply the monies entrufted with them. This feems 
to be the confequence of his general accufation.: >» 
-lolr the Dr. would fay any thing. further’ to 
foften the odium of this accufation which he has: 
caft upon the Society, it muft-be by afferting thar 
they did not underftand ‘their.own charter ;’ this, iff 
true, may ferve in fome meafure to take off the. 
charge of wilful abufe and mifapplication ; and that» 
he fuppofes. it true is clear from hence, that he has: 
{pent mariy pages and employed his: great learning» 
and penetration in explaining this intricate charter, 
that the Society may no longer mifapply their -cha~ 

' . rity 


ae ot 
C AY 
fity for: want of ‘underltahding thesreal defign of 
‘their inftitution. It may be queftioned however, 
whether his refin’d criticifm and curious explanatioti 
will merit the thanks of the venerable board. ‘That 
untoward word orthodox, which :fo-much raifés his 
indignation: wherever: he meets with it, will norper- 
haps:after all his learned: pains, fairly. comprehend 
the diffenters: from a national eftatdithment! | How= 
-eyer that be,’ there:is:certainly no method of recon- 
ciling his candid profeffions of juftice, decency and 
re{peét towards the Society, or his folemn declara 
tion that it is not his intention to ‘charge: that 
venerable Body with! welful known mifcondué: 1 
fay, itis impoflible to reconcile thefé things, With 
the numerous abufes, accufations : and» indécencies 
which have been already produced, and with which 
he has treated that refpectable Body: phen rim 
plicitly, in almoft every page of his book. | Ed 
In fhort,: the Society; either have, or tribe not 
adted contrary ito the meaning and defign: of ‘their 
charter; that they have not, is ‘at leaft highly /pro- 
bable | froti te schidatteraf wifdom, ‘honor'and 
piety, which the world will generally allow to thofe 
of them at leaft, who.are chiefly aétive and intereft- 
ed in managing ‘their affairs: If they have! aéted 
eontrary to the defign of it, as the’Dr. affirms (and 
pretends to think he has prov ‘d) they have either 
done fo wilfully, or thro’ ignorance. - That they 
have not done it wilfully, the Dr. himfelf allows ; 
it remains then, according to him, that their mif- 
condu@: is owing to ignorance: Either they have 
mifunderftood the true and real defign ‘of their 
charter, or have not a competent knowledge ofthe! 
ftate of religion in the plantations, or how their: 
— are condutted there, being impofed-on by the 
reprefentation 


( te) 


reprefentation of their miffionaries, or that both 
thefe things concur to miflead them, into an abufe 
of their inftitution. The latter feems-to be his fenfe 
of the thing, viz. that they are ignorant: ‘both of the 
true meaning of their charter, and alfo of the ftate 
of religion in the plantations ; for he fays in the 
clofe of his introduction, that “* the profefs'd de- 
fien of his obfervations is to fhew, that they (the 
* Society) have in fome refpe&s counteracted and 
** defeated the truly noble-ends of their 1Ns TIT U- 
“ -r1oN, however contrary to their iatentton.” Whe~ 
ther they have done fo or not, will-fall under exa+ 
mination hereafter. —In the mean timeil fhall take 
leave of his introduétion with this fingle remark, 
that ‘from the paffages already “quoted, as’ well 2s 
from ‘many others that might have been produced 
from this curious book of obfervations, it appears 
that the profeffions of candor and ingenuity which 
the Dr. fet out with, and his declaration of refpect 
for fo venerable a body -as-the Society, are mere 
affe@tation and grimace, and tend only to prove that 
he “ knows not what-manner of -fpirit he is off.” 
| Tt was obferved before, that according tothe Dr's 
reprefentation the Society are ignorant of the true 
fenfe-aud meaning of their hatte: and alfo of the 
ftate of religion in the plantations; for he afferts 
that they have greatly perverted ithe defign of theit 
inftitution, and«yet will not allow their mifeondué 
be wilful; it remains ‘therefore that their mifap- 
slication of the trutt they have mde isow ing 
© ignorance, 
: Te willbe proper therefore to inquire firft, Whether 
1¢ Society muft not be fuppofedto havea complercnt 
owledge of ithe flate of religion nr in’ the pi lantati- 
s,fo far-at leaftas relates to the defign of their in- 
orporation. And, B _ 2. Whether 


Ce : 


2. Whether they may net alfo reafonably be fup 
pofed to underftand the true fenfe, meaning and de 
fign of their charter ; for if thefe two things cat 
be proved to the fatisfaétion of difinterefted. an: 
unprejudiced people, it will follow, either that th 
Society are not chargeable with mifcondué and mif 
application of their charity, or if they are fo, tha 
fuch mifcondu& is known, wilful and intended 
which the Dr. does not allow. . 

The firft thing to be examined is, Whether th 
Society have not a competent knowledge of th 
ftate of religion in the plantations. Dr. Humphrie 
in his hiftory of the Society page 22d, acquaints us 
that “ upon their firft engaging in this work th 
“ Society prefently perceived it confifted of thre 
great branches, the care and inftruétion of ou 
own people, {ettled in the colonies ; the conver 
* fion of the Indian Savages, and the converfior 
“ of the Negroes. The Englith planters had : 

i ~* The Society bega: 
** therefore with the Englifh, and foon found ther 
was more to be done among them, than they ha 
as yet any views of effe@ting.” He then proceed 
to give “ a {mall fketch of the ftate and conditio: 
“of each catnip formed from accounts, the Go 
vernors, and perfons of the beft note, fent ove 
to the corporation.” I {hall omit what is faid o 
the fouthern eatheni/h colonies as Dr. Mayhes 
modeftly calls them, becaufe thefe he allows to b 
proper objects of the Society’s charity, and procee 
to the ftate of religion in New-England as reprefent 
ed in the hiftory before mentioned. After fpeakin 
of the firft fettlement of the country, and the ftat 
of religion in the early days of it, Dr. Humphric 
proceeds to fay,—‘ Since that time great number 
f : 7 66 C 


(74 


(<4 


1a) 

© of people, members of the church of England, 
‘ have at different times fettled there, who thought 
‘ themfelves furely entituled, by the very New- 
* England charter to a liberty of confcience in the 
* worfhipping of God after their owa way. Yet 
* the Independents (it {eems) were not of this fen- 
* timent, but acted as an efabli/bment.” “ The 
* members of the church of England in Bofton 
* met with fo much obftru€tion in attempting to fet. 
* up that form of worfhip, that they were obliged 
* to petition the King for protection. Their peti- 
* tion was granted, and a Church thereupon crect- 
ed, which occafioned the members of the church 
* of England in many other towns in New-England 
“ to declare their defire of the like advantage, and 
accordingly wrote very zealous letters to bifhop 
Comptoh, for minifters; and now it appeared 
* they were a very confiderable body of pcople.”* 
From thefe feveral paflages, it appears that the Society 
lid not proceed haftily and without due caution and 
nformation of the ftate of religion in the colonies 
which they propofed to aflift. Dr. Humphries goes 
on and fums up the religious ftate of the colonies 
na brief reprefentation of it, from the memorials 
of Governor Dudley, Col. Morris, and Col. Heath- 
ote. I fhall pafs over the fouthern colonies for 
he reafon before mentioned, and come to New- 
ingland.—* In Connecticut colony in New-England 
* there are about 3cooo fouls, of which when 
they have a minifter among them, about 150 
frequent the church, and there are 35 commu- 
nicants. In Rhode-Ifland and Narraganfet, which 
is one government, there are about 10000 fouls, 
of which about 150 frequent the church, and 
there are 30 communicants. In Bofton and Pif- 
* Humph. Hill. p. 39. caraway 


‘ 


‘ 


6 


Co ag 


* cataway governments, there are about 80000 
* fouls, of which about 600. frequent the church, 
“and 120 the: facrament.” 

After fuch particular information from the me- 
morials of thefe honorable perfons, perhaps no man 
except Dr. Mayhew and his voucher, will fuppofe 
the Society could be ignorant of the ftate of religion 
in this part of the world, nor confequently where 
it was moft proper to employ their charity. Agree- 
ably Dr. Humphreys acquaints us that “ the Gover- 
“ nors of feveral colonies, and other Gentlemen of 
“ character abroad, and merchants here in London, 
having given fuch a particular defcription of the 
religious ftate of the plantations ; the Society 
found it was high tin ne toventer upon the good 
work” * efpecially as “* great numbers of the in- 
habitants of various humors, and different tenets 
in religion, began to contend with great zeal, 
which fhould be firft fupplied with minifters of 
the church of England, and wrote very earneft 
letterssto the Society —TI hey (the Society.) thougirt 
any further delay now wouldbe inexcufable, after 
the people had preffed fo earneitly for their af- 
“' fiftance.”. Yet as if all this care was infufficient, 
and. that the Society might leave no method unat- 
tempted, for gaining a more perfect knowlege of 
the {tate of religion in the colonies, “ before they 
‘t proceeded to appoint miffionaries: to particular 
places, (they) refolved to fend a travelling mifffo- 
nary, who fhould.travel over, and preach in. the 
feveralG overnments,on the continent of theBritifh 
** America.” + Accordingly they did fend the Rev. 
Mr. Keith, who landed at Bofton on the 11th of 
June 1702, and in the courfe of two years travel’d 

Over 


& 


ce 


nw 


¢ 


* Hmph. Hit. p. 44, 45. $ Ditto 73,748 


a 


over and preached in all the Governments betwixt 
Pifcataway river and North-Carolina.inclufively,when 
having finifhed his miffion he returned to. England, 
and publifhed a full account of his labours. One 
thing in his_narrative I fhall juft mention, viz. That 
“ in divers. parts of New-England, he found not 
“ only many, people well affected;.to the Church, 
who had no. church of England minifters, but 
alfo. feveral New-England minifters, defirous, of 
epifcopal ordination, and. ready to embrace the 
church worthip, fome of whom. both hofpi- 
“ tably entertained Mr. Keith and)Mr. Talbot (who 
“‘ had joined Mr. Keith as, an afliftant) in. their 
“ houfes, and requefted them to. preach in_ their 
congregations, which they. did, and received great 
thanks, both.from the minifters and from the 
people.” * 
“ Mr. Keith in the conclufion of his narrative re- 
“ prefented,to theSociety, the. want of a great. num- 
“ ber of miniftcrs for apeople difperfed over fuch 
“ large countries,” and among others makes mention 
of Narraganfet, Swanfey, Little Compton & Rhode- 
Ifland in New-England, which, Places had engaged 
him to prefent. their humble requefts to the Socie- 
ty, to fend minifters among them.} | 
Yet notwithftanding this particular information, 
fupported. by many earneit petitions from the plan- 
tations for minifters of the church of England, 
“« the Society thro’ the whole managemewt of the - 
truft, have been fo far. from obtruding the church 
of England worfhip upon any fort of people 
abroad—that they have not been.able.to give any 
afliftance to great numbers of people, who have 
in very moving terms, with a true chriflian {pirit 
Saar “ requefted 
} Humph. Hift. p74. * Ditto 78, 79.  — $ Ditto. 


iz4 
iT) 
ce 


“ 


6c 
“ce 


6é 


« 
39 
(<4 
«ec 


&e 


hee 


(\ 19Re a 


* requefted it ; and whom they knew to ftand very 
“ much in want of it. There remain upon 
‘ their books numerous : petitions of this fort.”— 
I fhall omit thofe from the fouthern colontes, for 
the reafons before mentioned, and proceed to that 
of New-England, which asDr. Humphreys acquaints 
us (page 615 “‘tho’ before provided with an inde- 
“* ‘pendent and prefbyterian miniftry, -yet had great 
numbers of inhabitants, who could not follow 
that perfuafion, but were exceeding defirous of 
worfhipping God, after the manner of the church 
“ of England. I fhall give the reader (fays he) a 
few petitions which fhew plainly the Society did 
not concern themfelves here, till they were loudly 
‘called upon ; and that the inhabitants in many 
places, did not only fend petitions for minifters, 
but alfo built churches before they had any mi- 
nifters, which is an uncontroulable evidence— 
that the people themfelves defired to have the 
church of England worfhip,with a hearty zealand 
true fincerity.” The Dr. then proceeds to fpecify 
as petitioners. feveral inhabitants of Rhode-Ifland, 
Narraganfet, Newbury, Marblehead, New-Hamphhire, 
Little Compton and Tiverton, Braintree near Bofton, 
and Stratford in Conneéticut.* “* The cafe of thefe 
* two laft towns he tells us was alfo further recom- 
mended to the Society’s care, by gentlemen of 
confiderable figure and intereft. Colonel Morris 
prefled very earneftly for a minifter for Braintree, 
and Colonel Heathcote, for another, for the peo- 
ple of Conneéticut colony ; 3 great numbers of 
whom were very carneft to have a minifter of the 
“ church of England. Robert Hunter, Efq; Go- 
*© vernor of New-York, in the year si I, writes 

3 thus 


sé 


ce 


“e 


ec 
“ce 
a9 


6s 


{ ap) 


“ thus to’ the Society, concerning the people at . 
“ Stratford : When I was at Connetticut, thofe of - 
our communion at the church at Stratford, came 
“ to me ina body; and then, as they have fince 
by letter, begged my. interceflion with the vene- 
rable Society, and the right reverend the Lord 
bifhop of London, for a miffionary; they ap- 
peared very much in earneft, and are the beft fet 
of men I met with in that country.” 
How thefe ¢everal teftimonies which have been 
produc’d will operate upon Dr. Mayhew, it ts not 
eafy to fay; but to the fober, judicious and unpreju- 
diced, the following conclufions may perhaps be 
thought fairly drawn, viz. That the Society have 
omitted no proper mean$ of information concern- 
ing the ftate of religion in the colonies—That their 
religions ‘tate muft therefore be competently known 
to wnat venerable board—And that if they have 
been guilty of any notorious mifconduct or mifap- 
plication of their charity, it could not be owing to 
ignorance of the true condition of things abroad, 
but mult be attributed to fome ather caufe: For 
allowing what the Dr. has moft uncharitably inti- 
mated, that the miffionaries have mifreprefented the 
condition of things among us, and by that means 
endeavoured to miflead the Society to an improper 
application of the monies lodged in their hands; 
yet can any modeft perfon fuppofe that Governors 
of colonies, merchants, and other gentlemen of 
character, have all along combined with the faid 
wicked miffionaries, to abufe and miflead the Society 
into a wrong difpofition of their charity? Or is it 
probable that their own members, feveral of whom 
do refide in the colonies, fhould confpire with the 
worthy perfons before mentioned to carry on the’ 
deceit? 


( v6 ) 

deceit’? ‘It is hoped the Dr. himfelf is *ndt fo far ‘in- 
volved in ’a party -fpirit as to affitm ‘the'probability 
of this, if he is, without doubt he is alone in fuch 
an uncharitable cenfure. «And therefore’ this peint 
may be left without any further remarks, to the 
public opinion. 

The fecond Inquity is ; Whether’the Society may 
not reafonably be {uppofed to underftand the true 
fenfc, meaning and defign ‘of ‘their Charter. 

Fo’thofe ‘who exantine the lift of members’ of 
which the Society is compofed, as it is exhibited in 
the yearly abftract of their proceedings, the prefent 
inquiry will appear very extraordinary. That a Sett- 
of Gentlemen,miany of them ‘highly diftinguith’d in 
the world ‘for their great parts,and éxtenfive know- 
lege, fhould miftake, or beat a lofs about the true 
meaning of a eharee, ‘which‘has nothing at all in‘it 
that isintricate or obfeurc,is what noreafonable ‘perfon 
will admit. -And‘notwithftanding the ‘Dr's refined 
critici/m, fome may ‘perhaps imagine that it ‘muft ar- 
gue ‘no fmall meafure of felf-fufficiericy in any-per- 
fon to oppofe his fingle {entiment,to that of fo learn- 
ed and ‘refpe@table a ‘body. Few’befidés the Dr. 
himfelf, will really believe that’ they needed his ‘affitt- 
ance for acquiring a right underftanding ‘of their 
charter. If we f{hould fuppofe, that'thofe very learn- 
ed divines, who from the beginning have conipofed 
a confiderable part of that body, fhould be lefs‘ac- 
quainted with the phrafe’ and purport of an inftru- 
ment in fome meafure foreign to their profeffion’; 
yet doubtlefs the Lord Chancellor, the’chief Jaftices 
of the'King’s Bench and common pleas, whofe pe- 
‘culiar profeffion it is, may be fuppofed ‘to underftand 
the natureof inftruments of this kind. “And as the 
Society are obliged to exhibit an anriual Bh ico of 

their 


C me ) 

their proceedings to. thefe wwery learned,and |worthy, 
perfons,-it’s furprizing that they fhould fuffer them 
to-proceed above 60 years, :without once acquaint- 
ing them that their conduétwas not agreeable to the 
‘Letter and Spirit of their charter. ‘That the Society 
fhould at laft be obliged toa profound .critic inNew- 
England for an ellucidation of this kind, after hav- 
‘ing fo many years ftood the teftof .an annual exa- 
‘mination, by thofe whom: the royal wifdom thought 
‘proper to appoint jas their: me A aot tty i 
‘they that can— 

Some 'fiiend of ‘the Dr's may poffibly here: cay 
out, what would this remarker be sat ?, The Dr. has 
plainly prov’d that the Society have:been ‘guilty .of 
great mifconduct, have acted quite inconfiftent 
with the jatent and defign - -of their charter, and 
from a- emce of charity is willing to impute. jit 
to! ation, or ignorance ; while this (Writer 
eaten ‘to defeat the Dr's ane pupal ad 
feems as tho’ he earn to prove: their milaceaiiet 
to’ be «wilful. 

‘After: thanking the: cainid Dr. iia otis ceed 3 in- 
tention, the author confeffes it: 4s. his opinion, and 
he thinks it has in fome meafure been prov’'d ;,either 
that the Society have not acted inconfiftent with 
their charter, or if they have done fo, that it was 
knowingly, wilfally and defignedly ; cha ‘Lhe au- 
thor’ thinks, as all reafonable men muftthinke: that 
the Society do very well underftand the: defign and 
meaning -of their charter—Aind alfo that» they shave 
a competent-knowledge of the ftate of | tneligion: in 
the plantations. 

“Tf thefe two «things :are allowed, ties selinbaicin 
will eve be what was mentioned before, viz. 

i Cc ~ . 9 either 


(C mer) 


éither that ‘the Societys have wz thifoomdunted, 
or elfe; that ‘there has-been ho mifeondué in) the 
cafe—That they have wil/fully mifconduéted. the Dr. 
difallows, thercforc, there has been no mifcondua 
at all_—Hicre. then. the> argument. and ‘imputation 
which the Dr. has catt. — the cee ae a 
‘courte. 
However, aha the: ‘Dr. has. ie eadich aiong! 
‘to clear the Society from any intentional .abufe of 
‘their charter;-poflibly others'may) not be fo ingenu. 
ous. Befides it may be efteemed nite toptake thi: 
‘advantage of the Dr's conceffion, to theinegleé o: 
*thofe many curious arguments he -has brought. t 
“prove what he: had before given up ;. for »notwith. 
“Mtanding the inconfiftency of it, he has throughou: 
Lhis book eeismerom to prove, (that which he! gayé uf 
*in‘the beginning ;) that the Society have'really-beet 
‘ouilty of wilful and: defigned abufe of. their, trust 
And therefore the author hopes: the Drewill forgive 
Pity if upon-a general view sof the obfervations,, he-i 
“‘Jed"'to queftion the fincerity of that declaration. be 
‘fore mentioned, viz. “ That it is not his)i intentio 
of Lroocharge that. yeneriblesbody (theSociety)) wit 
bee any wilful known mifconduét or areas appli 
cation of monies.’ 
»wMr. Noah Hobart (w. sie bi the way the! Dr. 
edb’ dia bifhop, for-his heroic exploits, in this co 
-troverfy)shas-plainly fpoke out, and direétly char 
= the Society: with a defigned abufe and perverfio 
Soefetheir truft, at leat fince the firft ten years aft 
© *their incorporation, though indeed like the Dr. . 
‘.afterwards fcems difpofed in fome meafure to retra 
‘the charge, and chufes rather to impute it to t 
a of the sage of religion in New-Englan 
Si steed ba: “a 
“$ Hobart’s 2d Addrefs, p. 126. con par’d weit fellow pages. 


CC ge )) 


and to the‘impofition afd mifreprefentation of their) 
wicked miffi ionaries. * But:the author conceives it; 
has already’ been’ proved that their: condu& cannot, 
be imputed to'a want of knowledge, and whatever; 
the difpofition of Mr. Hobart or his: copier-may be,; 
it is prefumed that an accufation of the Society as, 
wilfully betraying their truft, will be received by the, 
impartial world, with therefentment itdeferves. It: 
is not the Sébiety alone; who are thus unjuftly ar-- 
raigned by thefe lecentisths’ pens, but the integrity: 
and honor of their infpedtors alfo, othe Lord chan-. 
cellor'and-the chicf juftices of the King’s bench, 
who yearly examine and approve their tranfactions, 
do of confequence fuffer impeachment by their ca-- 
lumny’;\ nay the extenfive abufe reaches to every, 
benefactor to that Socicty,. who, as:an arinual ac- 
count of their proceedings is publifhed and put into 
their hands,-muft be fuppofed to approve them, fince 
otherwife it is more than probable they would ave 
paibanaees their afliftance. 

- As.for the learned and ingenious ;Dr. I rt 
< certainly defeendcd very low, when lie vouchfafed 
oO become the tranfcriber of Mr. Hobart’s addrefs, 
or (excepting fome perfomal refletiotis upon. his 
intagonift) there appears little elfe- throughout _his 
obfervations, befides a fervile copying of that curious 
veice of defamation. The method indeed he may 
laim to himf{clf, and fometimes the phrafe and.man- 
rer of expreflion. The Dr. owns © the book has 
yeen of fervice to him,” aad promifed.to “ make 
roper acknow ledgments wherever he fhould make 
fe of it” yet has not perhans always becn fo good 
$ his word ; nor will the empty honor of. a d:/hop 
“hegh he arbitrarily confers on. ne sige a a, 
M aba Oo)2 fu fficicnt 


” Vid. Hob. 2d Addrefs, p. 145. 


(9 
fufficient compenfation for the libetties-of this-kind 
which he has taken. He afferts that.“ Mr. Hobart 
wrote fo folidly, and judicioufly upon the fubjedt, 
that‘it was hardly needful for him to fay-any thing,’ 
this is granted, unlefs he could have advanced fome- 
thing new, which the other had not offer’d before . 
efpecially as Mr. Hobart’s peice received as folid anc 
judicious an anfwer, which the Dr. thought prope 
wholly to ncgleé&. In truth, had the Dr. but care. 
fully read the Rev. Mr. Beach’s difpaffionate bu 
-miafterly reply to Mr. Hobart’s fecond addrefs, he 
might have feen a full and compleat anfwer to all 
he has written (except what is merely perfonal) 
without breaking in upon that peaceable difpofition 
which gives him fuch “ an averfion fo controverfy.” 
~ The Dr. affirms p. 18. That “ nothing is to be 
“ fuppofed the object, or any part of the objeé ol 
“ this charitable and royal inftitution, but. wha 
“ plainly appears to be really fo, from the very 
~ words of the charter’ and a. little after “* the 
~ © words of the charter: itfelf muft determine and 
* limit the fenfe of the royal Grantor, and confe 
_ quently the legal power conferred on the — 
** Grantees.” We fhall {ce prefently how. far the 
Dr. adheres to his own invariable rule of interpre: 
tation. He confefles “ that the Britifh plantations 
“ or the King’s fubjects were really the primary. 
“‘ more immediate object of this inftitution.” Aind 
pray why not the fole and entire object of it: 
There is certainly no other obje& “ particularly ex: 
‘prefled” in the charter, . befides that of the King’ 
fabjects. Has he forgot what he had afferted bu 
‘a few lines before, that “ nothing is to be fuppofe 
“° any part of the object of this infticution,but wh 
plainly appears to be fo from the very words 
Sih ear | 


(Abe). 


“ the charter,” Why then_are. the King’s, fubjects 
id to be the primary, more wnumediate, and not the: 
ole object of their inftitution,? fince, they are, the. 
only object exprefly mentioned im the very, words 
of the charters. It was a, ftrange overfight, in this. 
great critic, to. depart fo fuddenly. from his invariable. 
rule; or perhaps there was a defign to be ferved in 
interpreting the charter by way of implication, tho’, 
exprefly contrary to his own ule of a, literal inter- 
pretation, ; and that was to.perfwade the world, that 
this fociety was, creéted chiefly for propagating the, 
Gofpel among the Indians, To this purpofe he, has 
conveniently contrived two. objects of this. inftitu- 
tion, the one “ primary and immediate” “ (the King’s 
‘ fubjects”) “ the other the grand ultimate object, 
« which is the Indians bordering onthe colonies.” 
But becaufe the exprefs words of the charter, which 
he had _reprefented as the folerule,of. their.condné, 
noluckily, make no .mention. of,“ this grand.ulti, 
mate defign”, therefore he found himfclf under .a 
neceffiry of departing from. the rule bimfelf. had 
contrived, in order to adapt one of greater, latitude, 
Indeed the Dr. affures us that this phrafe “the pros 
pagation of the gofpel im thofe parts,” . neceflarily 
“includes the grand ultiniate defign” before men- 
tioned ‘“ of chriltianizing the Indians.” But: pray 
“Dr, why fo? Is not. the defign of that phrafe the 
propagation of the gofpel fully anfwer’d, by preachy 
ing it to thofe of the King’s fubje@s who, feem.to 
be abandon’d to atheifm and infidelity, and to thoefe 
other “ inferior fubjeéts the flaves’?. many of whom 
eyen in New-England are yet in a ftate af Heathe- 
nifm. Does not the royal Grantor fay: exprcfly, 
we think it our dyty to promote the glory 
God, by the inftrudion of eur people in the chriftian 


Pied 


religion ? 


(\ 2 
religion ? "J Is there a fi ngle word about’ the heathen, 
bordering on our colonies? Why will he thén’ force’ 
upon us a defign which the charter dées not mention? 
What is here faid is not intended’ to’ prove that 
the Society have not a power by their charter to’ 
propagate the Gofpel among the heathen, for they! 
really have fuch a power, and have accordingly made 
ufe of it, whenever opportunity has offer’d to do it 
with fuccefs ; and will continue to do fo notwith- 
ftanding his endeavours to mifreprefent, and leffen’ 
the merit of their pious labours. But the author's 
intention is to fhow the Dr. the fophiftry of his 
argument, and that the rule he lays down for inter- 
preting the charter, would, if admitted, exclude the 
Society from this good work, and confequently that 
his fae by proving too much, Ag nothing 
at a 
- The truth is, the Society have by their charter, 
not only a legal power of propagating the Gofpel 
among fuch of ‘the King’s fubjeéts as are in danger 
of lofing their chriftianity thro’ atheifm or infidelity, 
and among the heathen who have rot fo much as 
heard of the name of Chrift: But: (as miniftring 
greatly to thefe purpofes) of fupporting the means 
af religion among thofe who have already, or who 
ineline to receive it according to the legal eftablifh+ 
ment and provifion of the church of England. In’ 
fhort whatever legal means are found. neceflary of 
tonduciye to fecure or propagate the profeflion of 
¢chriftian religion as it is eftablifhed in England, and 
all other his Majefty’s dominions (Scotland excepted) 
and made apart of the conttitution of the Englifh 
mation ; thé Society have a right’by their charter to 
“make ufe of, underftood in that generous view, ori- 
Binally Gefigned and. intended by the Grantor. - 
But 


@ a ) 


But .to this the Dr. further objeéts; ;that the 
“Grantor, “King. William himfelf. was. bred up in 
«“ the calviniftic principles and difcipling, quite oppo- 
“¢ fite in fome refpeéts to the epifcopal, and is 
ally. fuppos'd to oe retain'd a regard ie de 
“« principles of his education all along ; tho’ as King 
“of England, and head of that church, there was 
“+ a neceflity of his externally conforming to its rites 
and difcipline’—The. reader is defired to ftop 

“here for a moment, and indulge his aftonifhment- 
Was. this glorious deliyerer then a finith’d hy pocrite,? 
Was he under a neceflity of acting contrary to his 
.confcience.?. of ‘conforming externally to the church 
“of England while his heart. was not. in all this? 
“What blacker picture could he have drawn of thofe 
- whom he calls “« the infamous race of the Stewarts’”* 
»than he has here given of this excellent prince? A 
» Prince for whom he pretends a refpect;. at. Icaft as 
: “much re{pect. as he. is. capable of paying to any 
“crowned head: For he.affures us in a yery folemn 
manner, that, “‘ the greatelt. part of mankind now 
fe ¢ treOEs and almoft always have been oppreffed by 
: wicked tyrants, called civil rulers, Kings and 
_“ Emperors’.t So this perhaps is to-pafs for ,a 
light. cenfure:upon the memory of our glorious 
_liverer, And this fuppofitious reflection upon King 
| William: was introduced it feems to prove that he 
could not look upon the miniftry in the church of 
“England as orthodox, in oppofition to thofe who 
‘diflent from the eftablifhment. But he might have 
_. found a better argument to proye that he could and 
_ did look upon it in that: ‘light ; for certainly better 
_ evidence could not be’ given of his regard. for the 
B church, of. hi brand, ape, his defire, to fee. it take 
. place 
» * Vid. Than. Serin. ak i. 48. t ‘Wid. Serm. 12. p 426. Vol. i. 


— 


a 


C 2 ) 
place and floutith in New-Englatid , thah his “gir 
see pounds fterling ‘per anni Bah 
privy purfe for fupporting-a minifter-of the ‘church 
‘Of England in Bofton, ‘and “his beltowing a ‘valuable 
| Fibraty of ‘books on King’s ‘chapel in that town ; 
to which’(tho’ ‘not immediately relative to N. Bng- 
and) ‘gratitude -will oblige ‘all ‘true fons -of ‘the 
‘church “of “Fngland: in America to ‘add, ‘his ‘reyal 
foundation of a-college at Willia in Virginia 
for ‘the ‘fame noble ‘purpofe. If the King “himfelf 
‘could fo ‘liberally part with ‘his owt ‘thoney' to fur 
port what the’Dr. ‘calls the peculiarities of es abopiady; 
‘tea hardly be doubted ‘but that’he’'would readily 
encourage the charity of ‘others in -doing the like. 
*So'that ‘itis not quite fo “unnatural” asthe Dr. ima- 
gines “to fuppofe that that noble {piritedPrinee ‘had 
‘“ ‘fachan intention.” Indeed it would be whnatural 
“to fappofe the contrary; viz. that in ‘making a grant 
in favor ‘ofa corporation of the churth’of England, 
“he fhould make ufe of a word in fome peculiar fenfe 
-of his own, and different from thatin which he knew 
“they had ‘been accuftom’d to underftand it.” Tt-may 
~ therefore very reafonably be admittéd ‘that by oftho- 
dox minifters in this ¢Harter, theGrantor did “intend 
“ thofe‘of the Englith church, not in diftin@ion from 
© 4llother churches in the world,” but in diftinétion 
* from ‘all thofe churches in the Englif’ dominions, 
“(Scotland excepted) who ‘diffent from the legal-con- 
~ ftitutional eftablifiment of England. = t 
- > ‘As pertinent to what has ‘been here faid, ‘the fol- 
“owing paflage is inferted, with whichDr. Humphries 
~worthily concludes his hiftory of the Society. “In 
*' pratitude to the memory of ‘the founder “of this 
* «Society ‘King William‘the third, it* may not be 
~“ 4mproper to conclude this treatife with remarking 
a tee = e+ & ‘; ta 


a 


“to the reader, the erecting of this corporation, 
“was among the laft public aétions of his heroic 
‘life: After having refcued. the proteftant religion 
“in Europe, and faved the church of England here, 
“ he did by this laft a@t, as.it were bequeath it to 
his American fubjects, as the moft valuable legacy, 
“ and greatelt blefling.”. But the Dr.adds—* to fay 
« that the Grantees underftood the term orthodox. 
“ in this narrow exclufive fenfe, is to reflect upon their 
“ underftandings.” As to their underftandings, it 
would become him to {peak with reverence of them, 
as what he is not qualified to take the meafure of : 
Nor is it any reflection upon them, that they fhould 
underftand the term orthodox in fuch a limited fenfe. 
For as the words orthodox and heterodox do in. 
their literal fignification: import, the one. a-righs, 
und the other a wrong or different opinion, in mat- 
fers relative to religion, fo, they who adhere ta 
he legal eftablifhed provifion, are ufually termed 
paaled-ct perfons who hold a right opinion, and 
hey who diffent from fuch eftablifhment are faid - 
o be heterodox, that is, perfons who hold a wrong- 
yr different opinion, whether their diffent arifes from 
loctrinal points, or ritual injunctions. Nor had the . 
Yr. any occafion to wonder that : his jantagonift 
hould underftand the word orthodox as well capable 
if the fenfe he had put upon it, fince it is ufed in 
he fame fenfe ‘in the hiftorical account of the So- 
jety as quoted by himfelf.+ | With.as little reafon 
oes he charge that gentleman with not diftinguith-, 
¢ between here/y and /chi/m, for he was not talk- 
@ of herefy, but of heterodoxy, between which 
feems this learned critic : knows no difference. 
Y DD» *: 9 OTS LO AND - 


pt } 
“se Obferv. p. lor. toy. 7 


(6 


. AnD this feems to be a proper place to take notice 
of another miftake that both the Dr. and his vouche 
have gone into, relative to eftablifhments. The Dr 
does not indeed feem quite fo clear as his voucher 
that congregationalifm or independency are eftablifh 
‘ed in New-England ; yct he has faid enough to fhev 
his inclination that the reader fhould believe it. Thu: 
in his 16th page he calls the minifters and churche 

_of New-England, the “ eftablithed minifters ane 
ehurches ;” anda notable proof of their eftablifhmen 
he gives us at the 42d page, where he fays, that th 
sae of the Maffachufetts-Bay made a lav 
_for the fupport of a learned and orthodox miniftry 
and this the Dr. calls a “ civil eftablifhment of reli. 
_ pion.” I fuppofe the government will fearcely than! 
_ him for this interpretation of that law, which reall; 
is charging them with invading the King’s pre 
_ fogative and eftablifhing themfelves: No fays thi 
_ Dr. in the next page, for the “ aéts which relate 1 
“ the fettlement and fupport of the gofpel miniftry 
_ & here, received the royal fanétion, and thereforeou 
“ churches /éem to have a proper legal eitablifhment.’ 
_ I believe if the Dr. held an eftate upon atitle fo pre 
_ ¢afious, as that of its being merely overlook’d, hi 
_ would be folicitous of obtaining a better confirma: 
tion of it. Indeed he is fo modeft as only. to affer 
that “ they /cem to have a legal eftablifhment ;” bu 
_ fince hé knew that this was no eftablifhment at all. 
. it was perhaps not quite ingenuous to tell his rea 
ders that it /eemed to be one. . 
. - In his 72d page heafferts, that the Church o! 
England “ is not eftablifhed here,” which appears t¢ 
. be introduced as another reafon why the New-En 
land churches are eftablifhed: But now if it fhouk 
appear, that the church of England really ee 


‘Caz >) 


-blithed here, and has been fo from the firft fettkement 
of the country; and that the churches(as he affe&s.to 
call them) of New England fubfift here as the diffent- 
ing congregations do in England, upon no other foot 
than that of a toleration: I fappofe the world will nor 
Jook uponit very modeftin him to {peak of the church 
of England in thefe colonies, as a party, a faction, 
little epifcopal parties, /mall difaffected and difcontent- 


ed parties.{— It will be proper therefore to fhew, 


~. 1.-TuHat what the Dr. calls the churches of New 


England are not eftablifhed in the colonies. And ° 


2. THat the Church of England is, and all a 


Jong has been eftablifhed here. 


_ Tat the New-England churches had no eftabs 
lifhment till the a& of toleration took place, is eyi* 
dent from their own confeffion ;. for fuch I take to 
be their fending an addrefs of thanks to King James 
the 2d. fora toleration of religion. Thus the affait 
is related by Dr. Douglafs. ‘ Anno 1687. The 


_ minifters of Maflachufetts-Bay colony, jointly fent 


an addrefs of thanks to.K. James 2d. for his ime 
“« dulgence, or general toleration of religious opinians 
** and congregations; this was fent over and pfe- 


_“ fented to K. James by Mr. Increafe Mather, he 


“ and his conftituents, were not polineae fufficient 
“ to penetrate into the wicked and, pefnicious con- 
“ trivance of that toleration.” The Dr..adds in a 


| mote that “ by. this general indulgence popery wa’ 
_ “ craftily to be introduced; the colony of Plymouth 


** unadvifedly fent an addrefs of the fame nature.” t 
If previous to this they had apprehended themfelves 
to be an eftablifhment, we can hardly fuppofe they 
would have fent a perfon a thoufand leagues to com- 


»pliment that prince upon his granting the bleffing of 
atoleration. — fiat 


: j Vid. Obferv. p. 55. 56. 57. 110. and im many-other places. 
Sum. hit. & pol. p. 440, vol I.” vod bs 


( 28 ) 
“A fecond reafon to prove thatthe’ 
churches are not eftablifhed here, fhall send walker 
from a letter of their Excellencies the Lords Juftices 
to the Hon. William Dummer, Efg; which is handed 
down to us by the hiftorian above mentioned, * 
and is as follows. 
/ ; Whitehall, Ot. 7.1 72 2 
¢ Sir, 

© Tue Lords Jolhices being informed fons fach 
“good hands, as make the truth of this advice not to 
“ be doubted, that at a general convention of mini- 
‘fters, from. feveral parts of his Majefty’s province 
© of the Maflachufetts-Bay, at Bofton, on the 27th of 
* May laft, a memorial and addrefs was framed, di- 
* rected to you as Lieut: Governor and ¢ouiteandet 
*in chief, and to the council aid houfe of reprefen- 
*tatives then fetting, defiring that the general aflem- 
* bly would call the feveral churchesin this province 
‘'to meet by their paftors, and meflengers, in a fynod, 
*ewhich memorial and addrefs, being accordingly 
‘prefented by fome of the faid minifters, in the name, 
“and at the defire of the faid convention, was con- 
*-fidered in council, the 3d of June following ; and 
‘there approved, but the houfe of reprefentatives 
* put off the confideration of it to the next: tethion, 

‘in which the council afterwards concurred. } 
£ Their. Excellencies were extremely farprized, 
‘ that no account of fo extraordinary and important 
‘ tranfa@tion fhould have been tranfmitted by you, 
* purfuant to anarticle in yourinftruétions, by which 
* you are directed upon all occafions, to fend unto 
‘ his Majefty, and to the commiflioners for trade and 
* plantations, a particular account: of all your pro- 
' SEBRDS, and the ‘egndition of affairs within your 
" BOvernDy: nb 


‘* Sum. hilt, & pol. vol. iI. p, 337. < 


CD 

“government.” As this matter doth highly concern 
“his Majefy s royal prerogative, their Excellencies 
‘referr’d the confideration of it, to Mr. Attorney 
‘and Solicitor General, who after mature delibera- 
‘tion, and making all proper enquiries, reported, 
“ That from the charter and laws of your colony, 
they cannot collect that there is any regular eftab- 
“ lifhment of a NATIONAL or provincial church 
‘< there, fo as to-warrant the holding of convocations 
or fynods of the clergy, but if fuch fynods might 
* be holden, yet they take it to be clear in point of 
* Jaw, that his: Majefty’s fupremacy in ecclefiaftical 
‘affairs, being a branch of his prerogative, does take 
“ place in the plantations, and that fynods cannot 
* be held, nor is it lawful for the clergy to affemble 
“as in fynods, without authority from his Majefty.” 
“« They conceive the above mentioned application of 
“ the faid Minifters, not to you alone, as reprefent- 
“ing the King’s perfon, but to you, and the council 
* and the houje of representatives, to be a contempt of 
* bis Majefty’s prerogative, as it is a public acknow- 
““ ledgment, that the power of granting what they 
“ defire, refides m the legiflative body of the provinee, 
wubich by law is vefted only in his Majefly. And . 
* the Lieut. Governor, council and aflembly inter- 
meddling therein, was an invafion of his Majefty’s 
royal authority, which it was your duty as Lieut. 
Governor, to have with{tood and rejected, and that 
the confent of the Lieut. Governor, the counciland 
“ houfe of reprefentatives, will not be fufficient au~ 
* thority for the holding of fach a fynod.” A 
“Their Excellencies, upon confideration ‘of this 
a of the attorney and: folicitor general; 

which they have been pleafed to’ approve, “have 
Sys me to acquaint you with, and to ex- 
aXe: ne * prefs: 


CPR | 
“prefs to you their furprize, that no account of { 
© remarkable a tranfaction, which fonearly concern: 
* the King’s prerogative, and the welfare of his Ma 
‘ jefty’s province under your government, has beer 
‘received from you, and to fignify to you their di 
° e&tions, that you do put an effectual ftop to an} 
£ fuch proceedings, but if the confent defired by 
* the minifters above mentioned, for the holding o 
* the fynod, fhould have been obtained, and thzs pre: 
§ tended fynod fhould be aétually fitting, when you 
“ receive thefe their Excellencies direétions, they do it 
‘that cafe, require and diret&t you, to caufe fic! 
‘ their meeting to ceafe, acquainting them that thezi 
* affembly is againft law, and a contempt of is Ma 
_‘ gefty’s prerogative, and that they are forbid to mee 
“any more; but if notwithftanding fuch fignification 
* they fhall continue to hold fuch an affembly, yor 
‘are then to take care that the principal a¢tors there 
* in be profecuted for a mifdemeanour. But'yowar 
* to avoid doing any formal aé to diffolve them, le! 
“it be conftrued to imply that they had a right t 
faffemble. ‘Lhis Sir, is what I have in comman 
‘from their Excellencies to fignify to you. > 
'-© And T mutt obferve to you, that the preceden 
“quoted in the above mentioned memorial of fuc’ 
‘a fynod being held 45 years ago, falls in with th 
“ yeat 1680, and that the former charter, upon whic 
* the government of your province depended, wa 
* repealed by fcire facias in the year 1684, and th 
' “new charter was granted in the year 1691, fror 
© whence it appears, that if fuch fynod was holde 
as is alledged, it happened a fhort time before 'th 
** repealing of the old charter, bur none has bee 
* firice the granting the newone. 
wr. 1am Sir your moft humble fervant. » 
CHARLES DEVAFAYE.’ 


y (31) 

© Let us-now compare Dr. Mayhew’s opinion 
with that of the attorney and folicitor general as 
given usin the foregoing letter; and to make the 
matter more plain to the reader, I will place them 
appofite to each other (as they are truly in them- 


felves) in feperate columns thus, | 

_ Dr. Mayhew’s affertion that the The Attorney and Solicitor 
New-England churches are eftab- | Generat’s opinion, and the deter- 
lifhed here. - | Socnpe of the Lords Juitices 


fachufetts-Bay, in the th of Wil- | of your colony (viz. Maflachufetts 


, thereupon. 
1. The government of the Maf- | 1. From the charter and Jaws 
Bay) they cannot colle&, that there 


iam and Mary, madea law for the 
fupport of a learned and orthodox 
minifiry ; itis needlefs therefore to 
look any farther back, for a civil 
eftablidhment of religion here. : # 
: Se _.° Obfv. p. 42. | 

_ 2. Theaéts which relate tothe | 2. Theacknowledgment offach 
fettlement and fupport of the gof- | a power in the legiflative bedy of 
pel mimiftry here, received ‘the | the province is a contempt of his 
royal fanaion, and therefore our Majelty’s prerogative. </ /. 
churches feem to havea proper} ./ °°. | #/. 7. < ies 
legal eftablifhment. P. 43. 5 rte a 


Ir is really furprizing, that after fuch a letter as 
this (of which it is fuppofed the Dr. could not be 
ignorant) he fhould notwithftanding affert that the 
New-England churches are eftablifhed. What be- 
comes of his argument for a civil or legal eftablith- 
ment, founded on certain aéts of affembly, not 
formally fet afide, and therefore fuppofed to be 
confirmed by royal fanetion, kya a foregoing let- 
ter declares that the attributing fuch a power to the 
legiflative body here is a dire& invafion of his Ma- 
jefty’s prerogative. Whether the Dr. will incline to 
difpute this point with the Lords Juftices, and prove 
that the Attorney and Solicitor General did not. un- 
derftand the colony charter, ‘as he has attempted to 
prove that the Society do not underftand theirs, I 
am not able to fay. -I hall leave him to determine 
that matter with himfelf, as ke hall think beft. 


AE oe aoe 


is any regular eftablifhment of a 
national or’ provincial church 
there. ’ 


( 32 } 


«Bum perhaps the Dr. may be better fatisfied byan 
argument in his own way.—He,lays it down as a 
rule for interpreting the charter of the Society, that 
“ nothing can be fuppofed the objeé or any part of 
** the object of that infticution, bute what plainly 
““ appears to be fo, from the very words of the 
“charter, even tho’ it were certain that thofe per- 
“fons to whom it was granted, had at the very time, 
“¢ fome farther views and ends in obtaining it, be- 
* fides thofe which are cxpreffed, or plainly implied ; 
“© yet the words of the charter itfelf muft determine 
“and limit the fenfe of the royal Grantor,and confe- 
“ guently the legal power conferred—It was only for 
* thofe purpofes that are particularly expreffed, not 
“* any private or fecret ones, which they might poffi- 
“ bly have had in their own minds, that they were 
“incorporated.” Let us now apply this rule to the 
charter granted tothe MaflachufettsBay. Nothing can 
be fuppofed the object or any part of the objeé of this 
conftitution, but what plainly appears to be ics the 
very words of their charter, which very words muft 
determine and limit the fenfe of theGrantor. It was: 
only for’ thofe purpofes that are particularly ex- 
prefled—tet the Dr. now read and examine the, 
prefent colony charter, bearing date 1691, and point 
out to us the paflage or paflages where in exprefs 
words a power is. granted of inftituting an ecclefi- 
aftical eftablifhmeht, or to ufe his own words, a, 
civil eftablifhment of religion; but if nothing of this 
kind is to be found in it; if fuch apower be neither 
the object, nor any part of the objeét of the colony; 
charter,. it is more than probable that there is no, 
fuch eftablifhment as the Dr. contends for exifting:, 
Ir any thing further fhould be thought neceflary. 
to confute the pretence of the New-England. 


C 33 ) 

churches being cftablifhed in the colonies, I fhail 

eref@r the reader ro a letter fent from her Majetty 
‘and the Privy Council to the colony of Connc&icut, 
O&. rith, 1705. See Doug. Sum. Vol. 2. p. 339. 

Ir has been now futticiently proved that the 
New-Engiand churches are not eftablithed here. 
We will: therefore inguire whether the church of 
England be not cftablifhed in the colonies.—This 
-was before affirny’d.—I fhall now attempt to prove it. 
One would imagine indeed that there fhould be fio 
occafion to enter uponithe proof of a thing fo plain 
andvevideht as this is; fince whatever difficulty 
there might be in determining this matter before, 
fyet certainly there can. be none at all fince the union 
‘of the two kingdoms, “ becaufe, fays Dr. Douglas, 
iff Hobe the‘aét of union of Scotland and England, ‘it 

‘is provided that the church of England goverii- 

‘ment iavall the Englith colonies was for ever 
4 Sueijitel + ~The fame author obferves in ano- 
brucis place, that “by the articles of union of the two 

“ nations of Great-Britain, May 1707, ‘the church 

“ of England is eftablifhed in perpetuity, in all the 

‘territories at that time to England belonging: 
ae a lofs how the .Dr. fhould overiook fo plain a 
cafe as this, fo as to deny the eftablithment of the 
church of England in thefe colonies, and to affirm 
that of the New-England churches: | Poffibly the 
Dr. never examined the point hinwfelf,. but took” it 
upon truft from his voucher. 

Bur tho’ it is undeniably manifeft thatthe church — 
of England is eftablifhed in all the Englith coloniés 
by the adt of union before-mentioned ; yet it may 
not be fo clear, that this eftablifhimertt adtually took 
place before that time ; and altho’ it is fafficient to 

itm : tthe 
4. “t Doug. Summary, vol. 1. p. 440, 4gl- t Do. p. 443. 


( 34 2) 


the prefent argument, that the church of Englan 
~ has been eftablifhed here from the time of the union 
-aforefaid ; yet for the fake of fuch as have not had 
opportunity of examining this matter, I fhall lay 
the cafe before the reader, as I find it already done 
to my hands by a learned and judicious writer, in 
-a@ letter-to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Foxcroft, printed 
ein the year 1745. bs 
- “ Tue chriftian religion (fays this ingenious 
-“ author) as by its evidence and intrinfic excellency 
~ jt recommended itfelf to the Englifh government, 
~ fo it became by law the religion of the Englifh 
“nation ; and the church of England -likewife be- 
“came by law their national church; and ,when 
“any part of the Englifh nation fpread abroad into 
colonies, as they continued part of the nation, 
the law obliged them equally to the Church: of 
““ England and to the chriftian religion. And the 
“ ftatutes for the eftablifhment of the fervice ordi- 
“ nation and articles of this church, made and con- 
“< firm’d before and at. the union of the two king- 
* doms, fettle and eftablith it alike in the dominions 
“* of England, and in the realm it felf. . 
“In the reign of Edward VI. certain bifhopsand 
“ learned men by theappointment of the King, com- 
** pos’d an order and rite of common prayer, and ad- 
*€ miniftration of the facraments, in a book entitled, 
* the book of common prayer, and admihiftration 
‘¢ of the facraments, and other rites and ceremonies, 
“after the ufe of the church of England. In the 
** 2d year of his reign, an act of parliament was 
“made (2d and 3d of Edward VI. c. 1.) entitled 
* the penalty for not ufing uniformity of fervice and 
*¢ adminiftration of facraments, whereby it was enact- 
 ed—That all minifters in any parifh church, or 
, B .. other 


G35. 

*€ other place within the: K ing’s domimons, fhould’ 
“be bound to fay and ufe the celebration of the’ 
““Lord’s Supper, and all their common and open” 
“ prayer, in fuch order and form as is mentioned in™ 
“this book, and none other, or otherwife. 

* In the fixth year of his reign, this book cf com-* 
“mon prayer, was by order of parliament (sth and 
“* 6th of Edward VI. c. 1.) explained and perfetted, ’ 
“and a form of making and confecrating, Arch- 
‘* bifhops, Bithops, Priefts and Deacons was added 
“to it; and by anact of parliament (entitled, uni- 
“ formity of prayer,and adminiftration of facraments’ 
“*fhall be ufed in the church) it was enaéted, that 
“the former a& fhould ftand in full force and 
**ftreneth, for eftablifhing this book of common 
“ prayer, &c. as it was for the former book, and’ 
“¢ thatif any manner of perfon inhabiting within 4zs 
“ Majefty's dominiows, Thould willingly and witting= 
“ly hear and be prefent at any ocher manner or 
“form of common prayer, &c. he fhould fuffer 
* imprifonment, &c. ; Fire 

“In the firft year of the reign of Queen Eliza- 
* beth a few alterations and additions were made in 
“this book of common prayer, and by an aét of © 
* parliament (1 Eliz. c. 2.) entitled there fhall be 
‘uniformity of prayer and adminiftation of facra- 
‘ments, it was enaéted,: that all minifters in any 
‘ parifh church, or other place within the Queen's 
* dominions, fhould be bound to fay and ufe the cele~ 
* bration of the Lord’s Supper, and adminiftration 
* of each of the facraments, and al] the common and 
“open prayer, in fuch order and form, as is men- 
tioned in the sth and 6th of Edward the fixth, 
with thefe alterations and additions, &c. and that 
every perfon inhabiting within the Queen’s Maje/- 
Bau Ei.2 fv's 


C 389 


“ ty’s dominions, fhould diligently and faithfully en- 
“ deavour to refort to’ the parifh church, or feme 
““ufual place, where common prayer and fuch fer- 
“vice of God fhould be ufed upon every funday,&c. 
_ “Tw the 13th year of Elizabeth, by an ac of par- 
“liament, entitled reformation of diforders in the 
“ minifters of the church : ‘The 'preamble of which 
“is, that the churches of the Queen's Majefly’s do- 
“< gnions, may be ferved with “paftors of found re- 
*¢ ligion, it was enacted thatino*perfon be admitted 
“*'to any benefice with cure, except he fhalf firft 
“shave fubfcribed the 39 articles. © 
IN the 14th ycar of Charles the Hid. the book 
“¢ of common prayer, &¢. was by the appointment 
“Sof the King reviewed, and in convocation altered 
“and added to, and prefented to his Majefty, and 
““ being approved and recommended by him to the 
_ parliament, was fubftiruted in the place of thatap- 
pointed in the reign’ of Quéen Elizabeth, and the 
“ parliament by an act (entitled am aét for the uni- 
“-formity of public prayer, &c.) reciting that where- 
“as the 36th of the 39. artitles, is in thefe words, 
“viz. That the book of confecration of Archbifhops 
“ and Bifhops, and ordaining of. priefts anddeacons, 
~ Tately fet forth in the time of King Edward the 
“ fixth, and confirm’d at the fame time by authority 
_“ of parliament, doth contain all things néceflary to 
* fuch confecration and ordaining, &c. and there- 
© fore whofoever are confecrated, or ordered:accord- 
_ Sing to. the rites of thar book, fin¢e the ad yearvof 
the aforenamed King: Edward unto this time, ‘or 
“ hereafter fhall be confecrated, or ondered accord- 
“ing to the fame rites, we decree all fuch to be right- 
_*6 by, orderly and lawfully confecratedsand, ordered 
* enatted that all fubfcriptions: hereafter to be mad 


66 int 


(a ) 


“unto the faid articles—fhall be con firpaidl and 
“taken to extend, and fhall be apply’d. for and 
€ “ touching the faid 36th article, and unto the book 
“* containing the form and manner of | making, or- 
«© daining, &c. in fuch fort and manner as the fame 
“did heretofore extend unto the book fet forth jin 
“the time of King Edward the fixth, .mention’d im 
“the faid 36th article. And by another paragraph 
‘in faid a&, itis enacted, that the before-mentioned 
* ftatutes, for the uniforniity of prayer. and admini- 
“ ftration of facraments, fhould ftand in full: force 
“and ftrength to all intents and purpofes: whatfo~ 
* ever, for the eftablifhing and confirming this book. 
““In-the sth year of the reign of Queen Anne, 
“ by an ad of parliament (5. A. c. 5.) intitled, aw 
“aé& for fecuring the church of Eneland as by 
“law eftablifhed, it. was enaéted that all. aéts of 
‘parliament then in forcey for the eftablifhment 
“and prefervation of the:church of England, and 
“ the dotirine, worthip, difcipline and*government 
** thereof, fhould*remain and: be in full force for 
“ever; and ‘that every King and Queen fucceeding 
‘ to the royal government of the kingdom of Great 
fi insite at ‘his or her coronation fhould take and 
“ fubferibe an oath to maintain, and preferve inviola- 
“ bly, the faid fettlement of the church of England, 
“and the do@rine, worthip, difcipline and goverm= 
“ment thereof, as by law: eftablifhed within the 
“ kingdoms of England and. Ireland, the dominion 
* of Wales, and town of Berwick: upon Bice! and 
“ the territories thereunto belonging. And bythe - 
“ ac of union of England and Scotland (5.A.c. 8.) 
“ this a& was made. an te Apts and Paper 
ih st of al usion.< 
; wae we E %4 


C 8) " 
“ T-have now cited feven ftatutes for» the eftab~ 
“ Jifhment of the Church of Englandyin the domi+’ 
“ nions.—Thefe ftatutes are:all now -im force, and 
“ do. equally ‘eftablifh and. confirm:the Church-of 
“England; her worfhip, articles and ordination; in’ 
“the plantations and in: England it»felf.”. ‘The 
force of the argument which has been idrawn from 
them will doubtlefs prove fatisfactory and convincing 
to every one who obferves, that every fubfequent 
ftatute that has been cited refers. to» and confirms’ 
thofe that preceeded, and by that means throw their 
united ftrength upon the point hereaffirm’d; fo that’ 
if plain dire& pofitive aéts of parliament have any 
force in framing and. confirming an eftablifament, 
. the Church of England is beyondcontroverfy eftab~ 
lifhed iniall his Majefty’scolonies and plantations, and 
therefore in the Maflachufetts Bay. and Conneéticut.’ 
_. Fre author does not.recollect any thing thatean 
reafonably be alledged againft this conclufion, unlefs 
the paflage which was quoted before from the Lords 
Juftices letter, viz. ‘* that from the charter and laws 
“ of this colony it does not appear that there is any” 
“ regular -eftablifhment of a national ior provincial 
“ church here,’ fhould, be thought an objeétion: 
If this paffage fhould feem to any one, to exclude the 
plantations from any eftablifhment at all, whether of 
the church or congregational denomination: Jt may 
be anfwered ; Itis not the intention of the faid let- 
ter to affert that there is no eftablifhment of religion’ 
at all in the plantations, but that /uch an effablifh~ 
ment.is not to be collected from any powers granted 
in the Maffachufetts charter, nor confequently imthe 
laws founded upon that charter. And fince no fpe~ 
cial power or privilege of this kind. was, conferr’d 
by the charter, it is evident that the ftate ot religion 
in 


C89 ) ) 

in refpect to eftablifhments muftand does in fact reft 
upon thofe aéts of parliament -which-relate to this 
fubjeét, and efpecially as they directly include: ‘all 
his Majeity’s dominions ; it being moreoversan al-. 
low'd maxim not only that all laws made in: the 
plantations contrary to the laws of England are ipfo 
facto void, but alfo that where a ‘cafe occurs for 
which the laws of any colony have made no provi- 
ion, fuch cafe fhall be determin’d by the laws at 
home. It appears then from all the acts of parlia- 
nent that ever were made relative to eftablifhments, 
hat there is an eftablifhment of the Church of Eng- 
and in the plantations, and that authority allow’d 
und ratify’d by the reigning prince, was the proper 
uithority to make an eftablifhment. “ The King 
under God) “ is the fupreme head of the church 
‘of England, and if he had not appointed an 
‘ ordinary over New-England, it would have re- 
‘mained under his own immediate ecclefiaftical 
‘ jurifdiction as{upreme head. But it is well known 
‘ that his late Majefty, in the firft year of his: reign, 
‘did impower the Bifhop of London, under the « 
‘ great feal, to exercife jurifdidion over the clergy 
in the plantations, which were not in any Diocefs, 
but remained under the immediate jurifdicion 
of the King.’ .- ) einer? 

We may now quit the fubje@ of eftablithments; . 
nd proceed to confider the. Dr.’s' fourth feétion; 
yhich contains fundry “‘ other things tending” (as he 
nagines) “‘:to explain and confirm the fenfe.of the 
charter.” The firft-is, ‘‘ the name by which this 

corporation is diftinguifhed,” viz. The Society-for 
be propagation of the Go/pel. This has been {po- 
en to before; it will only beneceflary to'add here, 
* that 
Vid. Letter above-mentioned, 1745. 


( ego 
that the Society have in their condu& ated agree 
ble to the import of this title, by fending “mitlion 
aries into thofe colonies which the Dr. allows to:b 
proper objects of their infticution; by fending other. 
to the Indian natives, and by appointing catechifts te 
the Negroes. In fhort, they have fo far comply’ 
with the import of this name or title, and with th 
defign of their inftitution, that the Dr. himfel 
is forced to confefs, however unwillingly, “that th 
** Society have chiefly fent their miffionaries int 
“ thofe Britifh plantations where they were mucl 
“needed, according to the true defign of thei 
** inftitution, and that they have thereby ferved th 
“intereft of religion.”+ But then he fays, “ the; 
*“ have deviated from the plan of their charter it 
*fome other refpects,” that is to fay, they hav 
fometimes endeavoured to preferve men from fallin 
into infidelity by providing for them the means\o 
‘religion,—forgive them this wrong—Doubtlefs eve 
ry candid perfon. will allow that- their inftitutiot 
admits of the prefervation as well as the extenfior 
of the gofpel, and whether the one or the other b: 
done, it muft be done agreeable to the particula 
profeffion and fentiments of thofe who are the un 
dertakers of this work. The Dr. adds, “for fevera 
** years, he thinks about eight or nine, after \thi 
‘* Society was founded, they fent no miffionary int 
“¢ New-England, which may naturally be looked o 
“ (he fays) as one argument that it was not origi 
“ nally confidered among thofe plantations whic! 
“were fuppofed to ftand in need of their charity. 
But it is-imagined that a better reafon may be'givet 
why few or no miffionaries were early fent int 
New-England, and that-is, that few or no focictie 
bd 0 
# Oblerv. p. gh, 1 DM 2 
; , 


a ( 4a¢ ) 


or. 1 congregations, appeared at that Fane to afk: their 
charitable affiftance. But afterwards frequent acceffix 
ons of people of that communion from abroad,toge- 
ther with the cee of reading and enquiry at pein 
joined with the enthufiafm which attimes prevailed, 
efpecially after Mr. Whiteticlds appearing among us,. 
and which drove many of the more f{erious and con-. 
fiderate people i into the bofom of the church ; thefe 
things occafioned fuch an increafe of the church of 
England, that the Society found it,neceflary, to al- 
low a greater proportion of their afliftance, as it was. 
10w earneftly called for,and more apparently needed. 
2. The next thing which the Dr. advances as li- 
niting the defign of the charter, is ‘‘ the common 
: ‘ feal of the Society, which befides a fun in the up- 
‘ per part of the circle, has a fhip within the circle » 
‘ under full fail ; on the prow of which ftands a 
‘ clergyman with a bible in his hand which he ex-. 
tends to a company of naked favages on thelfhore, 
thronging to reccive the bleffing, juft over whom , 
is a fcrol] implying thefe words come over and help » 
us.” It is not eafy to imagine what this proof. 
as alledged for, fince it either proves too much,or 
Me nothing at all to his purpofe.. If it was defign- 
d to prove S that. the e Jole bufinefs of the Society ac- 
prding to their charter, was to carry the gofpel to 
ne favages, this would dire&tly contradi@ the char- 
ry which, declares. the primary object of their infit-,- 
ition to be the King’s ahiacis but if it was brought 
prove that the Parecsion of the natives was one 
rt of the defign of their inftitution,this is nomore 
in what we allow, and is agreeable to the condué . 
® the. Society as. well as their charter... Taking 
refore the defign of the charter in that fenfe, in 
ich the focicty “have all along-underftood it, and 
: E agreeable 


<7 


4 


oy 


C 42% ) 
agreeable to which they have practifed, applyin 
themfélves both to theKing’s fubjeéts and the natives 
and it very well agrees with the feal under confide 
ration, but if applyed wholly to the natives which i: 
the ufe the Dr. feems to have bro’t it for, inftead o 
agreeing, as he fays it very well does, with the char 
ter, it really is a flat contradiétion to it. , | 
' 3. The next thing alledg’d by the Dr. in fixing 
the fenfe of the charter, is certain anniverfary fer 
mons preached before the venerable Society, fom: 
paflages of which he has quoted, in fupport of hi 
opinion ; but this like the former inftahce produc’ 
by him, either juftifies the Society, or elfe is nothing 
at all to the purpofe. For does not the Dr. him 
felf reprefent the defign of their inftitution to b 
that of preferving and propagating chriftianity amon; 
the King’s fubjects, and extending it alfo to the Hea 
then ? And has not this been the very practice o 
the Society from the beginning ? And what do th 
anniverfary fermons imply but certain exhortation 
to purfue the feveral obje&s of their inftitution 
thofe which the Dr. has quoted infift chiefly upot 
one tepic, while other fermons preached upon thi 
fame occafion enlarge on fome other branch of thi 
seneral defign? As to the particular paffages cited b 
the Dr, he himfelf allows, that they do “rather coin 
“ ‘cide, with the ultimate, than the more immediat 
defign of the inftitution, and fo harmonize rathe 
more perhaps with the feal and name of the S 
‘ciety,than with the charter.” What now are we 
learn from hence, but that the feal and name of 
fociety, which a little before he had produced 
explain and fupport his fenfe of the charter, do # 
ally not harmonize with it at all, but only with t 
fermons he has quoted. So all he had been oe 

uy he 


1i4 
ce 


ce 


a gs 


scfore by way of pronf, from thename and feal of 
he Society is now given up again, as being (what 
indeed it was) nothing’ to the purpofe. This gentle- 
nan has a very ftrange method of proving and dif- 
sroving, of afferting and giving: up, again. Sure he 
sould never expect to artive at any folid conclafion, 
by this wanton method of arguing. The truth is, 
thofe worthy. gentlemen, who have preached th 
anniverfary fermons before the Society, have not all 
of them confined themfelves to the fame topics, bur 
as the inftitution of the Society comprehended feve- 
ral objects, fome have enlarged more particularly 
upon one objet, and fome upon another, as they 
feverally, thought proper, but all within the general 
intendment and defign of their charter ; and if the 
Dr. had-intended to have drawn an argument from 
thefe annual fermons, in proof of the original defign 
of their inftitution, he fhould have formed an ab- 
ftra& from. them all, fo far at leaft as they have en- 
larged upon different topics, and have given us. the 
colleétive fenfe of the whole. But this indeed would 
not have ferved his turn; for he himfelf fays “ he 
“ is not infenfidle, that fome of thefe fermons, ef- 
* pecially within the laft twenty years, have ex- 
 preffions in them of a much lefs catholic ftrain’; 
that is to fay, they do not fo well fuit his purpofe ; 
and in truth he has taken the liberty to treat them 
accordingly, that is with great indecency, as_ will 
appear to any one who confults his 1 ath, 14th and 
sth feétions, as well as many other paflages of his 
book. 

The author has now gone thro’ the Dr's repre- 
{entation of the Society’s charter, together with. the 
feveral arguments he has advanced, to fupport the 
fenfe he hath put upon it, and has endeavoured to 
prove 


( 44 ) 

prove that they are altogether inconclufive ; whether 
he has fucceeded or not, ymuft beleft to the judgment 
of thecandid unprejudiced reader. Inthemean time if 
the account which has now been given of the char- 
ter and inftitution of the Society be'juft ; all the Dr’s 
accufations of that venerable body, his charges: of 
mifconduét, mifapplication of monies, and perverfion 
of the truft which they have taken on themfelves, 
fall to the ground ; and he has only to confider 
what reparation he ought in confcience to make, or 
endeavour to make, for the indecent liberties, and 
various abufe he has been guilty of towards them 
’ Here therefore the prefent examination’ feemis to 
to conclude; but as there are yet many things in 
the Dr's book; which the author conceives to be ex- 
tremely exceptionable, he thinks it proper to take 
notice of at leaft fome of them. 

It is a frequent fubjeét of complaint with him, 
that the grocery have not done enough towards the 
converfion of the Indians, tho’ by their public ac- 
counts it appears that they have omitted nothing in 
their power, to promote that good work 5 nor have 
they been entirely without fuceefie He is’ likewife 
much difp'eafed} that more miffionaries have not 
been fent to thofe colonies, whofe religious fate he 
thinks to be but little removed from heathenifm, 
What colonies he here refers to, we can be at no 
lofs-about, fince he excepts none but thofe of Con- 
necticut and the Maffachufetts-Bay. He allows for 
‘inftance that the Society might have fupported mif- 
fions in the colony of Rhode-Ifland with propriety 
enough ; and indeed they have done fo, and poffi- 

‘bly might have done more than they have, if they had 
not met with too much oppofition from a party fpirit. 
For inftance, The Society upon a reprefentation of the 

: great 


C 45>) 

great neceflity of amiffionary in theNarraganfet,parti- 
cularly in South and NorthKingfton, at a time when 
there was no fettled miniiterof any denomination ; 
fent thither Mr..Guv, Mr. Bridge, and afuarwenele 
Dr. Macfparran to officiate among them. To give 
a check’to theie gentlemen fuccefs, and left the in- 
habitants fhould’ receive religion, as itis taught in 
the church of England ; one Mr. Torrey was dif- 
patched thither, ior nad fo' little pretenfions, and fo 
few adherents, that he could not find five perfons to 
give him a call (which I think the platform requires) 
and yet is officioufly continued there ‘to this day, 
tho’ his congregation, ‘as I am informed by thofe 
who live in the neichbourhood, ufually confitts of 
fearce twenty people. 

Again, The Society Satie miffion at Provi- 
dence about the year 1722 or 1723, where at that 
time there was no fettled {wnitiifter of the) congre- 
gational perfuafion. But for fear thofe people thould 
receive the benefit of religion agreeable to the church 
of oe a’ congregational minifter was foon feat 
thither, and as it is faid, even forc’d upon the people, 
who efafed to’ pay any thing towards his fupport. 
lO OWee Mibre”'ae UCharleRtdwa: in the Narraganfet, 
an‘attempt was made by feveral church families 
in that town, to eftablith a miffion for the benefit 
of themfelves, and the tribe of Indians in that neigh- 
bourhocd (at that time about4co) to which attempt 
the Indians were fo well difpofed, by the labours of 
Dr. Macfparran a neighbouring miflionary. that the 
Sachem gave a piece “of groun nd to ere@ a chure 
Epon, and a confiderable quantity of land befides, as 

glebe for a miionary. Accordingly a- church 
as fet up, and the laudable defign ina promifing 
fay, when one Mr. Parks was, fent thither, to give 

a 


( 4h 


a check to the attempt, who by drawing off a part 
and kindling a fpirit e sco both Ex 
glifh & Indians in that town, totally difappointed ané 
fruftrated the above defign.* Let the Dr. now refleé 
whofe fault it is, that this colony has been no better 
provided with miffionaries, and lay his hand upon hi: 
mouth, when it appears how indefatigable fome peo: 
ple have fhewn themfelves to fruftate the Society’: 
attempts, even in thofe places where he allows the} 
might laudably have employ’d their charity. Let i 
farther be obferved in anfwer to the Dr's principa 
objection, viz. “ that the Society do not allow ; 
“ due proportion of their charity to the foutherr 
“© beatheni/b governments,nor to the Indian miffions.’ 
As to the former, feveral of thofe governments, hea 
then as they are, to their great honor be it fpoken 
have made a handfome provifion among themfelve: 
for the public worfhip of God, and therefore do ne 
longer need the Society’s help. And as tothe lat 
ter, he is certainly a very improper judge what ob- 
ftru@tions and difcouragements they have met with 
in their attempts to convert the Indians ; he there. 
fore fpeaks at random, and with great want of cha. 
rity when he fays they have negleéted that part o! 
their inftitution in order to propagate the church ir 

N. England. ; 

The Dr’s fifth {&Gion contains his account of the 
ftate of religion in N. England, before and fince thi 
the incorporation of the Society. But this accoun 
in many things, can by no means be approved. - 

It is not the author’s intention to call in queftior 
the religious character of the firft adventure s to N 

; Engjand 
* This lift might have been greatly enlarged, but itis an invidious fi ) 
jeat, which the author by no means delights in ; nor would b 


mentioned at all. if the Dr. had not cry’d out fo much about a par 
Spirit, and faulted the Society for neg'eéting this colony. 


C. 47 ) 
England, he doubts not in the leaft but that they 
were ferious well meaning people,and altho’ labour- 
ing under fome miftakes and prejudices, yet many of 
them perfons of great wifdom and underftanding as 
well as piety. Nor will it be difputed that they made 
“ early provifion for the public worfhip of God” * 
But how far their coming hither was occafioned by 
their fufferings and perfecutions at home, as alfo 
what their fentiments were as to religious matters 
may deferve farther inquiry. 

In the mean time it may not be improper to take 
fome notice of the great veneration the Dr. profef- 
fes for the memory of thefe our pious fore-fathers, 
who firft came into this country, for the fake of en- 
joying (as he fays) purity of faith and worthip. 
Could the Dr. have mentioned thefe good fathers 
without blufhing, if he had reflected how widely 
he has departed from the faith which thefe good men 
profeffed, and that as to the moft effential do€tines 
of chriftianity ? Or muft we take his appeals and 
harrangues of this kind to be mere grimace, or ra- 
ther a defign calculated ad captum vulgi, to raife a 
ferment in the minds of the people, who cannot 
help retaining, and that very jultiy, a value for the 
memory of their progenitors?) Whatever their noti- 
ons of liberty, or purity of religion amounted to, 
they certainly had no great opinion of the learned 
Socinus ; they entertained thofe orthodox opinions, 
at leaft concerning the divinity of the Son of God, 
which the Dr. has treated in fo bold, as well as lu- 
dicrous a manner ; and had he lived in their days, 

he 
‘* Obs. p. 40. 


$ See his fermons,on the terms of falyation—Of being found inChrift— 
Of joftiGcation by faith—and particularly his 2d fer. on cbriftian fo- 

~ briety+——Compare thefe with the doctrines taught by the ecarly_ 
Writers aad diyines of N. England, 


C48). )) 


he muft either have enlarged his cteed, or felt the 
effects of their honeft refentment.. But tho’ he has 
no right )to take. fhelter under the merit of thofe 
good men who are fuppofed to have firft come hither 
for the fake of enjoying a pure religion according 
to their confciences, fince he is departed from that 
purity of faith, whatever it was, which they pro- 
feffed, as far as darknelfs is from light. Yet becaufe 
this {tale pretence concerning the defign of the firft 
adventurers as to religious matters is artfully and in- 
duftrioufly propagated among the common people 
who have not fuflicient opportunities of examining 
this matter, it will be neceflary to give it a more 
particular confideration. _Sphit 
Dr.Douglafs acquaints us that “ Robert Brown,a 
hot-headed young enthufiaftical clergyman, began 
anno 1580, to preach again{t the ceremonies and 
difcipline of the church of England; he was per- 
fecuted or baited and teazed by the bifhops courts, 
“ he with fome difciples left England, and formed 
“a church at Middleborough of Zealand in the 
** Dutch low countries ; after fome time this effer- 
“ vefcence or ebulition of youth fubfided, he re- 
turned to England, recanted, and hada church of 
** England cure beftowed upon him, and died in 
“S that communion, anno 1630. 
“ A congregation of thefe Brownifts was form- 
“ in Yarmouth 1602, being harrafs'd by the efta- 
“ blithed church of England, with their paftor they 
“ tranfported themfelves to Leyden in Holland ; 
‘ here they. became more moderate under the di- 
“ reéion of their paftor Mr. Robinfon ; and ftom 
“ Brownifts changed their denomination to that of 
“ Independents : Being of unfteady temper, they 
* refolved to remove from amongft rangers after 
a : ten 


174 


66 


it 


6¢ 


49 C 49 ) 

“ten years refidence, to. fome remote country in 
“ fome wildernefs, where without moleftation they 
“ might worfhipG od in their own devotional way.” 
Dr. Douglafs adds, that they “ obtained an inftru- 
** ment from K. James I. for the free exercife of 
“ their religion in any part of America”; but in 
this article he is contradiéted by Mr. Prince in his 
chronology ; who fays the utmoft they could obtain 
was “ that the King would connive at them, and 
“ not moleft them, -provided they carry peaceably : 
“ but to tolerate them by his public authority, un- 
* der his feal would not be granted.” 

Thus the firft effectual fettlement in N. England 
was clearly made upon a religious account : But as 
o the firft fettlers of the colony of the Maflachufetts - 
3ay, underftood as pofterior to, and. diftin@ from 
hat of Plymouth, they plainly aéted as other men 
ifually do upon like occafions, from hopes of in- 
reafing their eftates, and providing an ample inhe- 
itance for their children. , Having for thefe pur- 
ofes negotiated a fettlement for fome time, by a 
sovernor and Company refiding in England, they at 
ength thought it moft for the intereft of the pro- 
riety, that the feat of government fhould be re- 
noved to the country they were fettling. Accord- 
agly Mr. Winthrop was chofen Governor, and he 
ith his aflociates embark’d on board fundry fhips, 
f which the Arabella was admiral, with a defign to 
roceed tq America. | 

‘As it was now pretty generally known, that the 
lymouth adventurers had fet up a way of worfhip 
ifferent from the public eftablifament of the nation, 
began to be fufpeéted and reported, that this new 
G company 


T Sum. Hift Polit, Vol. I. p 369. t Prince’s Chronolo p 57. 
See alfo p. 52. -6o. oy Ne ed 


( 5° ) emer rm 


company had a purpofe of the fame nature, ‘abo 
as they fhould arrive ii America. This came to th 

ears of Governor Winthrop and his affociates, whi 
| they lay wind-bound at Yarmouth, and it gave the 

reat uneafinefs, as well it might, to lie wnder ‘th 
odium of this flander, and o¢cafioned their writin 
the following letter for their own exculpation bi 
fore they put to fea, viz. 


Extract of -a letter diretted to the B ifbops and Clerg 
and people of the Church of England, from ¢ 
board the Arabella, April 7, 1630. | 


’ For ootaining their prayers, and the removal « 
ffficions and mifconftruétion of their intentions.* 


—'* "E befeech you therefore. brethren by tl 

“ mercies of the Lord Fefus, to compat 
us as your brethren, flanding in very great net 
of your help, and earneflhy imploring wt. And bov 
“ ever your charity may have met with fome occafie 
" of di cour agement through the mi ifreport of our i) 
“* tions, or through the difaffection, or indifcretion 
& Jome of us, or rather among us ; ( for we are n 
« of thofe Phat aoe, of verfetbion 3 in this world ) y 
“wwe defire you would be pleafed to take notice of tl 
“principals and body of our company, as thofe wh 
 eftcem tt our honour to call the church of Englan. 
“from whence we rife, our dear mother ; and 
cannot part from our native county, aber’ fhe Jp 
“. cially refideth without much fadnefs of ‘heart ar 
many tears im our eves ; ever acknowledging, th 
uch hope and part as we have obtained im the cot 
mon falvation, we have received in her bofom, a 
“ fucked from her breajts. We leave her not-ther 
“fore as loathing that milk, wherewith we w 


¢ 


eis 


“ec 


J Cr hie) 


* neuitfbed there, but bleffi ng God.for the parentage 
“ and education, as members of the Jame, body, Joall 
“ always rejoice im her good, and unfergnedly grieve 
“< for any forraw thgt may ever betide her,and, while 
“ we have breath fiscerely defire and endeavour thecon- 
“* tinuance, and abundance of “ber welfare, with the 
enlargement of her bounds, in the kingdom of 
“ Chrift Fefus. —Be pleafed therefore rev'd fathers 
and brethren to belp forward this work now in 
«band. &e. Signed by, ' 
Jon WINTHRop, Govr. y 
THOMAs DUDLEY, Dep. Gov. ae a 
Sir RicnarD A oe a 
Isaac JOHNSON. 
Rey. GEorGr PHILLIPs. 
WILLIAM CoDDINGTON, ? ye. 
CHARLEs Finks, is sas ps 


Previous to any application of the foregoing let-, 
et it may be proper to obferve, that Mr. Prince in 
is chronology gives teftimony that thefe pious peo-, 
le were profeffed members of the church of England.. 
* For the information (fays he) of the prefent. age. 
“as well as pofterity, they (this colony of pious: 
“speople) were of a denomination fomewhat diffe- 
rent in thofe early times from them of Plymouth: 
‘ —they were ‘till now,” (that is, after their arrival 
n N. England) “ * profelled members of the church 

‘ of Encland.” 

From the eivaios letter and teftimony it is. evi- 
lent, that w hatever the cafe was at other places, and 
vith regard to other adventurers, the firtt fettlers, of 
he Maflachufetts-Bay at lcaft,thofe pious good men, 
vho left “the fair cities, illness and delightful 
fields of Britain, for the then inhofpitable thores, 

‘ and 


a 


“* Prince’s chronol. p. 213. 


C\. sa% OM 


* and defarts of America” did not do it bd any 
difguft they had taken at the eftablifhed religion of 
their country ; but from quite other motives._—— 
They pofitively declare their veneration for the eftab- 
lifhed church, that they efeem at their honour to call 
her their dear mother, that they cannot part from the 
place of her /pecial refidence without much fadne/s 
heart, and many tears in their eyes, they acknowledge 
that the hope they have obtained in the common: falva- 
tion, they received in her bofom, and fuck'd from her 
breafts. They declare they do not loath the milk wth 
which they have been thus nourifhed, but ble/s God 
for this their faerie and edycatien, that their. in- 
tentions have been mijreported ; that while they have 
breath, they will stNCERELY endeavour the conti- 
nuance and abundance of her wel are, with THE 
ENLARGEMENT OF HER BOUNDS, im the kingdom 
of Chrift Fefus. 

After fuch an explicit declaration as this; written 
and figned with their own hands, how can the Dr. 
pretend that thefe men were aggricved.at home,that 
they “carne hither chiefly on account of their faf- 
“ ferings for non-conformity,” that “ they fled: hi- 
“ hither as to anaflylum from epifcopal perfecuti- 
‘on’ *? Is the foregoing the language of the per- 
fecuted, of men fuffering for confcience fake? In an 
honeft and ferious view, what foundation had» he 
for calling upon people to “ refle& on what their 
“ forefathers fuffered from the mitred lordly fuc- 
“* ceffors of the fifhermen of Galilee”? What truth 
in faying that this ‘ occafioned their flight into this 
* weftern world”? Did our pious fore-fathers 
“‘ throw themfelves into. the arms of Savages and 
* Barbarians, to be delivered from the unholy zeal 
and 
* Obs. p. 39. i’ 


Ch se) 


* and oppreffions of thefe lordly men,countenatic’d 
by fcepter’d tyrants”? * And would they at the 
fame time eatneftly afk the affiftance and prayers of 
thefe lordly oppreflors, and openly acknowledge the 
fpiritual benefits they had received from them? Read 
my dear countrymen, read the words of our pious 
fore-fathers, in the above letter; and compare them, 
with this author’s licentious harangue, and pretended 
vindication of them, and {ce with your own eyes” 
whether the Sirit of the one and the other have the 
leaft fimilitude. In hort cither thefe pious good 
men, were honeftly attach’d to the church of Eng- 
land, and ferious members of her communion, or 
they were not ; the Dr. affirms ‘they were differ: 
ters, they chew felvds declare, that they were faithful 
fons and’ children of the church, educated in her bo- 
fora, nourifh'd at ber breafts, blefing God for this 
their education, pronujing to feek her welfare, with 
the enlargement of ber bounds : From hence then 
one of thefe two things mult unavcidably follow ; 
either that'they were dreadful prevaricators w ithGod 
and'man, ‘or elfe that they are fadly abufcd and flan- 
dered, when contrary to their own exprefs declara- 
tion they are faid to have been diffenters, driven hi- 
ther by the oppreflions and perfecution of the church 
of "Bngland: if the former was the cafe, let us no 
more boaft of them as pious good men ; If the lat 
ter, let the Dr. confider, what eam pele he can 
ake to the memory of thefe men, for abufing them 
with the opprobious charge of feétarifm and | bypo- 
rify 
And this feems to be a proper place to take no- 
ice of a refleGtion which the Dr. very liberally be- 
ows upon the eftablifhed church of England, which 
he 


: . Obs. pP- 155, 


CO gag 


he calls “ a cruel perfecuting ehurch”* and Gy 
“ the firft fettlers of the country were perfecutes 
“ out of England by the efobaihes church.”§ Anc 
again, “ is it not enongh” (fays he) “ that they 
“¢ “* perfecuted us out of the old world? will they pur 
‘ fue us into the new”? | And a few lines after hy 
fue of the danger of being “ confumed by the 
“ flames, or deluged in a flood of epifeopacy”. / 
ftranger would perhaps be led by this ‘manner o. 
expreflion to conceive, that not only Ste and faggo 
were plentifully employed in England for extirpating 
diffenters,but alfo that the Dutch method of knuting 
was uled towards them for thelame purpofes, Thefi 
that have been mentioned are but a few, out of ma. 
ny, very many bitter terms he has thought prope 
to beftow upon a proteftant church, univerfally ve 
nerated abroad, and generally cfeempstlis bulwarl 
and glory of the reformation ; a church remarkabl. 
for its tendernefs, and kind reeeption of foreign pro 
teftants, when thet have been obliged to fly fron 
their native countries on account of real perfecution 
I am forry the Dr. has made it neceflary to ente: 
upon a fubject fo invidious as this, and which lie 
fo open to abundant recrimination. The author i: 
unwilling to renew the memory of thofe feverities 
that were too commonly praéticed by all parties il 
the laft century, and which feem rather owing tc 
the temper of the age, and the miftaken maxims o. 
policy then prevail:ng, than to have been the con 
f{equence of religious principles. The church o 
England, confidcred as fuch, has nothing in its con 
flitution, that either neceflitates or warrants a per 
fecuting temper 5 ; and if any improper feverities have 
at any time been ufed by the government, in fup 
porting 

* Obes. p. 40. § p 46, fp 156.° fap | 


porting the cftablithed feligion of the nation’; they 
certainly were as foreign to the principles of that 
chutch, as they are to chriftianity in general. Will 
this gentleman allow that the perfecutions and op-. 
preflic ions exerciféd by the Prefbyterians, Indepen- 
dents, of by what name foever he chufesto have-them 
diftinguithed, at a time when they had the govern- 
ment in their hands, were the natural and proper 
‘effect of the religious principles of thofe denomina- 
tions? And yet a great number of the moft cele- 
brated preachers of thofe times, warmly inveighed 
againft allowing even a toleration to fuch as pro- 
felled the church of England, expoftulating with the 
civil government upon ” that account, reprefenting 
fuch an indulgence as a great fin, a betraying the 
éaufe of ‘Chrift, and frequently ufing, or rather per- 
verting that expreffion in the Gofpel, compel them 
to.come in. Nay did not the violation of liberty 
and the rights of confcience rife to that height, as 
to prohibit by an ordinance under the penalty of 
five pounds fterling, the ufe of the common prayer, 
even in the moft private manner, in a perfon’s own 
houfe? For’ a fecond offence ten pounds, for the 
third one years.imprifonment. * Should the feverities 
, exercifed 
‘* And it is forther hereby ordained by the faid Lords and Commons, 
that if any perfon or perfons whatfoever fhall at any time er thmés 
hereafter ufe, or caufe the aforefaid Book of Common Ptayer to be 
 ufed, in any Church, or Chappel, er publique Place of worthip, 
or in any private place or family, within the Kingdom of England, 
or Dominion of Wales, or Port & Town of Barwicke, that then every 
fuch perfon fo offending therein, fhall for the firft offence forfeit and 
p2y the fumme of five pounds of lawful Englifh money. for the fecord 
offence the fumme of ten pounds, and for the third offeace ‘thall fuffcr 
ofe whole year’s imprifonment without baile or mainprize. Vid. Ord. 
of Lords and Commons 23d Avguft 1645. printed at the end of the 
Directory. The not ofing or depraving the faid Directory is by the 


- fame Ordinance made penal. And it is further hereby creamed ‘that 
every minifter which fhall not henceforth pu:fue and obferve the Di- 


CR 

exercifed towards the Quakers in the Maffachufetts- 
Bay, (whom by the way the Dr. by an awkward 
peice of flattery endeavours to complement with 
his good opinion+) when by. fines, imprifonment 
and death of fome, { the reft were obliged to take 
refuge in a neighbouring government ; fhould thefe 
feverities be attributed, not to particular indifcrete 
aaen, but charged as a confequence of congregatio- 
nal principles, would this be thought a-fair or ge- 
nerous conclufion? yet thefe and a thoufand in- 
ftances befides, the effects of an indifcrete and wrong 

pointed 


rectory for publique worfhip, according to the true intent and meaning 
thereof, in all exercifes of the publique worfhip of God within this 
Realme of England, &c. fhall for every time that he fhall fo offend, 
Jufe.and forfeit the fumme of fourty fhillings of Jawful Englifh money, 
And that what perfon foever fhall with intent to bring the faid Di- 
retory into contempt and negleét, or tosraife oppofition againft it, 
preach, write, print, or caufe to be written or printed any thing in 
the derogation or depraving of the faid Book, or any thing therein 
‘cofteyned, or any part thereof, fhall lofe aod forfeit for every fuch 
offence, fach a fumme of money, as fhall at the time of his conviction, 
be thought fit to be impofed upon him, -by thofe before. whom he 
fhall have bis trial, provided that it be not lefs than five pounds, 
~ nor exceeding the fumme of fifty pounds. 


+ Obf. p. 50. 


{ Anno 1656. By a law of the province of Maflachufetts-Bay it was 
enakted ; None of that curfed fed of hereticks lately rifen up in the 
world, which: are commonly called Quakers, are to be imported : 
Penalty upon the mater £100 per peice, and 40/ per hour for any 
other perfon hirbouriog or entertaining them. 1658 a Quaker con- 
victed fhall be banifhed upon pain of death. Sum. Hilt. Polit. Vol. I. 
P- 430. Againinp. 448 Some laws were made again{t the im- 
portation of Quakers and their proceedings— they were fubjected to 
fines, imprifonments, whipping, cropping of ears (1658 three Quakers 
had their ears cropt) and banifhment, and by act of affembly upoo 
their returo from banifhment 1659 and 1660, three or four Quakers 
fuffered death. This. in courfe occafioned a national clamour, and 

_ the pains of death were exchanged into thefe of beisg whipt, only 
through three towns at the carts tail: But upon furrher complaints 
home King Charles I. in Couacil, by order, Sept. 9h 1661, requir- 
ed the accufed to be fent home for trial, and all penal laws Aclauing 
to Ouakere ta be fulnended. 


Cg 

pointed zeal, might be mentioned by way of recri- 
mination. Will the Dr. allow that if any of the 
denominations, Prefbyterian, Independent, or Con- 
gregational, had now the power of government in 
their hands, they would put on the fame oppreflive 
temper ?—furely he will not—Nor does he find 
the church of England at this day praétifing any of 
thofe feverities wherewith he labours to affright and 
prejudice people againft her. No eftablifhment in- ~ 
the chriftian world, is more gentle, or allows greater 
liberties to thofe who diffent from it, than the 
church of England. Even the Dutch, who are 
thought to afford as great liberty to confcience as 
any-chriftian ftate, are never known to admit any 
perfons into civil offices, who do.not conform to 
the legal worfhip, which, altho’ it be a reafonable 
caution, is yet more than the Englifh government 
are nice in exacting. 

WHATEVER may be the temper of particular — 
men, it is pretty certain that at this time of day, all 
parties difclaim thofe feverities which have formerly 
been too much indulged ; the people of New-Eng- 
Jand in particular, have fpecial reafon to be careful 
how they countenance thofe who would promote 
fuch a difpofition (to which fome may think the 
Dr's manner of writing upon this occafion has no | 
{mall tendency) left the fame effet fhould -refult 
from it, which has once been\ the confequence of 
fuch a condué in the province of the Maffachufetts 
Bay ; perfecution of their fellow chriftians having 
been.one principal article which occafioned the va- 
cating their former charter.¢ | It was obferved, that 
this Gentleman’s writings have a tendericy to ftir 
up mifaffection and a party fpirit (which are the 

G natural 
; + Sum, hift. & pol. vol. L. p. 4z2 


* 


natural foresnitiners of perfecution, where there is 


power to execute it) this was not fpoken at tandom, 
as will appear isin the following paflages— 


ok! When we-confider—what might probably be the 


“fad confequence, if this growing party” (the church 
of England) ‘“fhould once get the upper hahd here, 
“and a major vote in our houfes of affembly: (in 

& 
‘which cafe the church of ik es might become 
“ the eftablithed religion here ; tefts be ordained as ih 


‘* England, to exclude all but conformifts from pofts 


‘of honor and emolument ; and all of us be taxed 
“ for the fupport of bifhops and their underlings)’ 

Now not tomention that the Church of England 
is already eftablifhed here, and teftsalready ordained 


‘and in many cafes required, as they are in England; 
“without any of thofe frightful confequences with 


which he labors to terrify the vulgar ; let it only be 
obferved that the plain import of this whole paflage 
is to perfuade people to unite in excluding thofe of 
the Church of England, not only from all pofts of 
honour and emolument, but even from the common 
rights and privileges of natural born fubjedts; a 
fcheme { notorioufly faétious and unjuft, fo evi- 
dently tending to divide and alienate the minds of 
his Majefty’s good fubjects from each other, that all 
wife and good men muft look upon it with indigna- 
tion and contenapt. 
Dr. Douglafs tcllé us in his Summary, that “ by 
“an ancient law of the Maffachufetts province, none 
“were allowed to be freemen but thofe who were 
; sche rch members, that is (fays he) of the indepen- 
“‘ dent or congregational religious mode; and that 
** only freemen were capable of voting in civil af- 
* femblies.” Upon which he remarks. “* This was 
Asian’ 4 “ too 
$ Obferv. p. 155, 156. 


‘ 


*‘ too narrowand confin’d, perhaps more fevere than 
“ ever was practifed by the Church of England in its 
“ moft bigotted and faulty periods.” To be fure a 
greater infringement upon Englith liberty was never 
attempted; fuch a law might well therefore be re- 
pealed,as it foon was upon the King’s letter in 1662. 
And yet this is the very thing which the Dr. in the 
foregoing paflages feems di firous of eftablifhing, not 
by a law indeed, the legiflature are too wife and juft 
to hearken to infinuations fo fatal to liberty, but by 
raifing fuch a violent fpirit of oppofition in the peo- 
ple as may anfwer the fame end. Let any man read 
the virulent paflage now under confideration from 
page 155 to 157,and having weighed the temper and 
{pirit of it, let him turn to pape 175, and obferve 
the fame man declaring, that “‘ he is far from de- 
“ firing to inflame the paffions of any one fect or 
“ party again{t ancther:” and when he has done 
this let him wonder. It is not expected he fhould 
reconcile them, the author would not put the Dr. 
himfelf upon fo impoffible a tafik as this. 

SHouLD the Church of England prevail in New 
England he is afraid we fhould “ ail be taxed for the 
** fupport of Bifbops and their underlings.” ‘This 
was certainly too weak an infinuation for one who 
writes himfelf D.D. and rather difcovers the writer’s 
paffion than his judgment. Even the loweft of the 
people, are too much of phylofophers and divines, to 
be taken in at this time of day, by fuch mean artifice 
as this; but it was defigned to beget a prejudice in 
the minds of the people againft epi{copacy, at which 
he takes all occafions to exprefs his diflike ; and in- 
deed his beft friends muft wifh that he had done no 

G2 more ; 


f Sum, hit. & pol. p. 432. + Tho’ the Dr, fays no aéts.of unifor- 
__mity ever took place here, fo far as he has learnt, p. 94 of Obferv. 


( 68 ) 
more ; but when he fuffers himfelf to treat that whole 
venerable order, with an indecency of expréffion, 
- which would be quite unbecoming if it were offer- 
ed to the loweft of mankind, let the impartial reader 
judge from what temper it muft proceed. 87 
- Tue Dr. could not be ignorant that epifcopal go- 
vernment generally obtamed thro’ all ages of the 
chriftian church ; that it takes place at this day in al- 
moft all the chriftian world; that the proteftant 
churches abroad, who are not fo happy as to live un- 
der this form of church government, do yet exprefs 
the higheft reverence and efteem of it; it would 
therefore doubtlefs have been more becoming to 
“have exprefs’d his diflike in terms of greater modefty 
than he has ufually done in this and many other of 
his writings, of an order fo generally held in vene- 
ration. Even the admired Calvin and Beza Rave 
highly applauded the epifcopal hierarchy of England, 
as appears by their lettcr to Queen Elizabeth, the 
Archbifhop of Canterbury, and others. They pray 
heartily toGod for the continuance and prefervation 
of it, bewail their own unhappinefs in the want of 
it, and mention it as thcir unavoidable misfortune 
to be without it. As to Calvin, altho’ he juftly ob- 
jects to that univerfal fupremacy claimed by the fee 
of Rome, as. ufurping the prerogative of Chrift, he 
would not believe that any man could oppofe the 
epifcopal hierarchy; but (fays he, {peaking of the 
Romifh church) “ If they would fhew us fuch an 
* hierarchy, in which the Bifhops might fo prefide 
“ as not to refufe fubjefion to Chri, but depen 
“ upon him as their only head, and refer themfelves 
“to him, then truly I will confefs that they de- 
* ferve to be anathematized, if any fuch men fhall 
“be, who. refufe to reverence.it, and fubmit ah 
* aa yt 


( § 


“ with the utmoft obedience.”+ To the fame pur- 
pofe alfo does Beza exprefs himfelf: “ Bur if any 
“ there be (which truly you will fcarce perfuade me 
“ to believe) who rejeé&t the whole order of Bifhopsj 
“‘ God forbid that any man in his right mind fhould 
“‘affent to thcit madnefs.”{ And particularly de- 
clares that it was never his intention to oppofe the 
hietarchy of the Church of England which “ fingu- 
Jar blefling of God he defires fhe may ehjoy, arid 
“ wifhes it may be perpetual.”§ If foreigners could 
{peak with fo much refpect and reverence of this vene~ 
table order; how great a want of decency does it 
imply in a fubject of this nation, who owes his liber- 
‘ty and every privilege he enjoys to the indulgence 
_of that very conftitution which appoints them, how 
indecent is it, I fay, to {peak of them in fuch oppro- 
ious terms as he has done in thefe obfervations, and 
in many other of his writings, of which the readef 
will hereafter find a {pecimen ? 

Nor is it the vencrable order of Bifhops only, 
which this writer has treated with fuch unbecomin 
freedom. Every part of the eftablifhed ecclefiaftica 
conftitution feems io provoke his difpleafure ; but 
uothing raifes his anger more, than that the Society 
fhould encourage the ufe of the liturgy in New Eng- 
land ; his contemptuous ridicule of which, makes the 
greateft part of his 14th feétion. THIs, 

7 ‘Talem fi nobis hierarchiam exhibeant, in qua fic emineant epif- 
copi, ut Chrifto fubefle non recufent, et ab illo tanquam unico 
capite pendeant, et ad ipfum referantur, tum vero nullo non ana- 


themate dignos fatear, fi qui erunt qui non eam revereantur, fum- 
maque obedientiaobfervent. Calvin de neceffitate ecclef, reform. 


++ 


Si qui funt autem (quod fané mihi non facilé perfuaferis) qui om- 
nem epifcoporum ordinem rejiciant, abfit ut quifquam fatis fanz 
mentis furoribus iHorum affentiatur. Beza ad Tractat. de minift. 
_-ev, Grad, ab Hadrian, Sarav. Belgaeditam. c. 1. 


§ Fruatur fand ifta fingulari Dei beneficentia, que utinam fit illi 
' »perpetua, ibid c. 18, 


byt 2, 


( @) 


Tuis, fo far as it is an argument has been urged. 
by him, ofteftimes before, and implies that he thinks 
the Society, have no right by their charter to fup- 
port a public religion in New-England, efpecially to 
the neglect of the Indians and the fouthern heatheni/h 
governments ; for if they have a right to fuppert re- 
lgion in New-England at all, he allows it is natural 
to expect they fhould do it in their own way, and 
according to their own fentiments.f To this it has 
already been replied, that New-England containing 
a great many negro flaves that are ftill heathen, a 
great many freethinkers and other mifbelicvers, be- 
fides a great number of people from Europe educated 
in, and {erioufly attach’d to the Church of England, 
is directly in the moft literal fenfe, one objcé of the 
Society’s charity agreeable to their charter. And 
that they have alfo given their attention to the bor- 
dering heathen, and to thofe other governments 
which he efteems little better than heathen, in fuch 
proportion as they (whom he allows to be proper 
judges in this cafe) have found encouragement to 


hope for fuccefs. 


As to the liturgy confidcred in another light, and 
as the objcét of his particular averfion, without en- 
tring into any direét vindication of it; it may be no 
improper rebuke to his licentions freedom upon 
this fubjeé, to remark, that the whole chriflian. 
church from the beginning has made ufe of liturgies 
in the public worfhip of God, as appears from the 
feveral forms of this kind which are fill extant : 
And the foreign reformed churches at this day, have 
not only each of them a public liturgy, but have. 
given ample teftimony to the excellency of that in 
. ule 
Obferva. Pp. 12. ; 


: 


( § ) 
ufe in the church of England ; which confidera- 
tions ought at leaft to Pie dhe his unfeafonable 
ridicule, and have taught him to mention with an 
air of greater ferioufnels, a fubje@ which the 
chriftiaa world have agreed to venerate.. | 
T HE 


+ In the year 1 y Dr. Durell publifhed a fermon in deience of the 
Englifh liturgy, fome copies of which he fent to feveral the moft 
eminent miniiters of the reformed churches in France. From 
whom he received the following anfwers. f 


From Monfieur del’ Angle, mini- 
‘fter at Rouen, 
Roiien, ce 5, Decem. 1661. 
Monfieur et tres honoré frere, 
Je ne fai fi je vous ai remercié 
de voltre excellent fermon--c’eft un 
fexcellent prefent que vous m’aves 
fait, vous le deves faire imprimer 
en mefme volume cue voltre Li- 
thurgie Frangoife afin qu'il lui 
terve d’Ange Tuteiaire, et qu'il 
Vaccompagne, infeculafeculorum. 


From Mr. de l’Angle, miaifter 
at Rouen. 
Rouen, December 5. 1661, 
Sir, my moft honoured brother, 
1 know not whether I have 
thanked you for your fermon—it 
is an excellent prefent yor have 
made me; you ought to have it 
printed with your Liturgy in 
French of the fame volume, to be 
as its Angel Guardian, and to 
accompany the fame forever. 


From Monficur Bochart, mjni- | From Mr. Bochart, minifter of 
fter of Cacn, Caen. 
De Caen, ce Decemb. 1661. Caen, December 1661. 
Monfieur & tres honoré frere, Sir, my moft honoured brother, 
Je vous fuis tres oblige des ex- 1 am very much obliged to you 
emplaires de voitre fermon | for the copies of your fermon— 
Vollre texte eft tres bien choifi, | your text-is very well chofen, very 
Qien-expliqué, bien appliqué. well expounded, very well applied, 


From Monfieur Gaches, minifter | From Mr. Gaches, minifter of 


of Paris. Paris, 
A Paris, ce 8. Decemb. 1661. Paris, December 8. 1661. 
| ——Je pafle a voltre fermon,qu’on | —1 pafsto your fermon, which 
\m’apporta il y a trois jours, et | was brought to me three days 
que je leu d’abord avidement. | ago, and which I forthwith read 
Si vous avies befoin d’approbation | with great greedinefs. If you 
apres celle du Chappelain de | ftood in need of an approbation, 
voftre Eveique, j’y joindrois tres | after that of your Bifhop’s Chap- 


yolontieres la mienne. lain, I would moft willingly add 


mine to the fame, 


Thefe were followed by letters of the fame purport from MeMietirs 
Paillé, the father and fon, both minifters of Paris, from Mon- 
fieur Tricot, Monfieur Rofel, and Monfieur du Vidal, all three 
minillers of the reformed church of Tours. 


( Oh) 


‘Tur. author has now gone thro’ every thing vir 
the Dr's book which he looks upon to be material, 
i. e. which relates to the profefled defign, or prin- 
cipal argument of it. If any thing has inadvertently 
efcaped him, which the Dr. thinks to be of confe- 
quence to his main argument, upon proper notice 
of it, he will readily wait upon him again. There 
are indeed fundry incidental reflections to be met 
with, ‘but as they are foreign to the general argu- 
ment, and efpecially as they havé been honour’d 
with fome proper remarks in a pamphlet lately pub- 
lifhed at Portfmouth in New-Hampfhire, the author 
does not at prefent think it worth his while to take 
notice of them. Leen | 

“Fo fum up the argument on both fides——-The 
Dr's book is entitled “ Obfervations on the charter 
“ and conduct of the Society, &«. defigned to fhew 
their nonconformity to each other.” In.profecut- 
ing this defign the Dr. has given us his, or rather 
Mr. ‘Hobart’s fenfe of the charter ; this fenfe he has 
endeavoured to fupport, by adducing the title and 
feal, and fundry fermons of the Society in confima- 
tion of it. After which, comparing the conduct of 
the Society with the defign of their inftitution, a: 
he has plann’d it, he finds them to be inconfiftent, 
or to difagree with with each other. This isa fhort 
(and it is fuppofed) a juft reprefentation of theDr’ 
management of the-prefent argument, which if -h 
had purfued in a modeft manner, without feurrilir 
or abufe, no -body would have blamed -him? h 
would have been intitled toa modeft and gentec 
reply. Whether he has obferved this method, lc 
the unprejudiced reader judge. i A 

THE prefent reply is intended to fhew that th 
conduct of the Society is not inconfiftent with thei 
charter, nor yet with the title or feal, or the anni 


C 6 ) 

verfary fermons preached before them. | To prove 
this the author has endeavoured to fhew, Firft, That 
the Society have always had fuch means of infor- 
mation, both in refpeét to the true meaning of their 
charter, and alfo in regard to the ftate of religion 
in the plantations, that it is morally certain they. 
could not have been deceived in regard to thefe 
points. 2dly. The members of which that Society . 
is compofed, are in general perfons of fo refpeétable 
a character, that it is utterly improbable they would 
act contrary to their inftitution with defign ; and 
further that if they were inclined to do fo, it would 
have been impoffible to have fucceeded in fo iniqui- 
fous a purpofe, becaufe their charter obliges them 
annually to fubmit their whole tranfactions, to the 
examination of the Lordchancellor and chief juftices 
of the King’s bench and common pleas, who are 
surpofely appointed by the Crown to fee that the 
rue intent and meaning of the grant be complied 
with. 3dly, The author has examined the charter 
tfelf, and compared the fame with the aétual con- 
luét of the Society, and finds that they have pur- 
ued the feveral objects therein recommended, agree- 
ble to their title and feal, and to the general purport 
yf their annual fermons. 

In examining the charter he thinks it appears, that 
he Dr’s interpretation of it cannot be juft, inas- 
nuch as it renders it inconfiftent with itfelf ; fo alfo 
is explanation of the feal and title of the Society 
nilitates with his interpretation of the charter, and 
erves to prove his miftakes as to both. His quo- 
ations from the anniverfary fermons of the Society, 
s they relate to one object only of their inftitution, 
nuft be look’d upon as a partial reprefentation, how- 
yer they do not at all interfere with what is ec) 

I € 


( @ Y 


ed to be the fenfe of the charter, ofewith their ge 
neral conduét, and confequently are nothing’ at al 
to the purpofe for which they were introduced. 
\ Befides this, the author has made a few cafua 
firi@turés upon fome of the Dr’s incidental reflect 
Ons, as they happened to fall in the way of th 
principal argument ; and he was the rather incline 
to do’this, becaufe the Dr’s quarrel with the So 
Ciety, feems really to take its rife, not fo much fron 
any thing he faw amifs in their: conduét, as fron 
his inveterate hatred, and. unreafonable difpleafur 
towards the church of England, which he flatter 
himfelf could not fubfift long in the country with 
out the Society’s countenance and fupport. «An 
yet in this perhaps he is \miftaken, fince the pro 
vidence of God has. more ways than one of fup: 
porting his own caufe ; fo that if theSogiety fhoulc 
think fit to withdraw their affiftance: (which’ they 
will hardly do the fooner for fuch: obfervations a: 
- his) it is not doubted but that God would raife ur 
other. helps, or fome way direct to fufficient mean: 
for the prefervation of his church. It was the ad- 
Vice of a wifer man than perhaps either of us, ‘tc 
the jewifh council, when they were confulting how 
they fhould put a ftop to the preaching of the 
apoftles, and the early propagation of the gofpel 
“Refrain from thefe men, and let them alone: fot 
“if this council, or this work "be of men, it will 
** come to nought : but if it be of God, ye can- 
“ not overthrow it; left haply ye be found even tc 
** fight againft God.” | 

if the Society, either through mifreprefentation 
or by any other means, have been led into an 
miftake in the management of any part of theit 
truft, no man will think that the Dr’s indecent an 

abufiv 


(@) 

abufivé treatmrent of them is the way to incliie 
them to amend it. Had it not been better to have 
improved upon the hint which he has quoted fron» 
-ifhop’Burnet, and by this means have excited their 
emulation’? or as the bith exprefles it “ have pro? 
voked them to jealoufly” ? Mr. Hobart referring’ to 
the fame paflage mentions fome ‘great things thab 
have béen’done in regard to the pein ballicks of the 
Indians by the Society i in Scotland: for propagating 
chriftian knowledge, (it is fuppofed-by the care and 
management of their commiffioners at Bofton) with 
a {mall expence. * Suppofing the truth of this; 
(which the author has no inclination to’ call in 
queftion) every good chriftian will fincerely- rejoice 
at it, and pray God that they may ftill meet owith 
more abundant fuccefs. But then would it not have 
been infinitely more ufeful, and have difcovered 
more of a chriftian fpirit, if the Dr. inftead of abus 
fing the Society for the propagation of the gofpel; 
had employed himfelf in giving a particular account 
of that pe! which ea been thus remarka+ 

bly fuccefsful, ec. g. What has been their certain fund; — 
what their cafual lat faBionss from whom they receive 
their money, and how it is expended, what miflicnaries 
they employ, at what places they are fixt, and what 
are their refpective falaries, and laftly, what accounts 
have been received from them as to the fruit of 
their labours : Had he done this, in fome fuch plain 
open and honeft method as the Society for propa 
gating the gofpel have done,it might poflibly not only 
have provoked them! to emulation, byt have opened 
to them fome new or more efféStual methods for 
rendring their pious defigns fuccefs ful. Certain it is, 
that no Society, whether incorporated or merely 
: voluntary, 


« Mr. Hobart’s 1ft Addrefs 5 p. £29. 


C aoe 

voluntary, whofe fingle aim and intention it is to 
promote the glory of God, jin enlarging the king- 
dom of the Redeemer, have any reafon to be afham- 
ed of publithing their tranfaétions to the world: 
On the contrary it feems to be a duty to do fo, 
not only to prevent fufpicion of ill and improper 
defigns, but-alfo that their light /bining out with a 
clear unfullied brightnefs before men, others may be 
induced either to join with them and ftrengthen 
their hands; or be led to fet on foot fome other 
pious and charitable work of a fimilar kind to the 
further advancement of God’s glory, 

» As to Indian converfions the author's opinion is, 
that the Rev. and worthy Mr. Wheelock’s judicious 
{cheme of educating fuch of the younger Natives, 
as may be obtained, among the Englifh at a diftance 
from their own homes, and then fending them back 
to their friends and countrymen, whether as miffi- 
Onaties or otherwife ; if it may. be done in any 
confiderable numbers, would have the beft influence 
in civilizing the favage temper of thofe people, and 
preparing them for the reception of the golpel ; 
This good defign therefore, as it deferves all encour- 
agement, fo it is pity but it fhould be univerfally 
known. Mr. Wheelock has indeed publifhed an 
open and undifguifed,as well asa modeft account of 
his plan, and of the progrefs he has hitherto made! 
Amit, but fince it has not yet circulated fo far as it 
might be withed, this little intimation is defigned to 
promote its being more generally known.* 

_ But to return from this fhort digreffion.—If the 
Dr. fhould complain, or rather (fince he has no 

. | . right 

* The pamphlet referr’d tq is intitled, A plain and faithful narrative : 
the original defign, rife, progrefa and prefeat fate of the Indian chas 


‘tity fchool at Lebanon in Connecticut. Printed by R. & S. Drape 
Bolton, 1763. : ] 


, CRG" 9 | 

right to complain) if his friends fhould complain in 
his behalf, that in the foregoing remarks, the author 
has fometimes ufed too great a feverity of expreffion, 
let them confider the provocation ; let them reflect 
on the indecent language, and various abufe, that 
the Dr. has poured out, not on fingle perfons only, 
but upon public bodies, upon the moft re{pectable 
characters, upon the eftablifhed religion of the na- 
tion, upon thofe who come over to, or embrace it 
in N. England in general as men void of ail 
piety and goodnef, * upon. the moft facred doc- 
trines of our holy religion — let them I fay reflect 
upon thefe things, and then fay whether there was 
not an occafion for fome kind of rebuke. The 
author is very far from being fond of harfh and 
fevere epithets, he had infinitely rather examine fab- 
jects of controverfy with that meekne/s and jear 
which is prefcribed by the apoftle ; but even’ the 
meck and gentle fpirit of the gofpel not only allows, 
but-alfo requires in regard to fuch licentious free- 
doms, as the Dr. has thought proper to ufe, that 
they fhould be rebuked /harply. 

If any one fhall ftill think that the Dr’s foible 
is reprefented in too ftrong a light, that he has not 
been guilty of all that indecent abufe in his writings 
with which he feems here to have been charged ; let 
fuch perfon examine the following fpecimen taken 

from his own writings, meft of them folemnly de- 

livered from the pulpit. It is hoped that it will 
ferve to fatisfy the moft incredulous, and befides it 
may ferve to /hew the Dr. to himfelf, and let him 
fee how far he is departed, I will not fay from the 

ignity of the facred office only, but from the 

piric of the gofpel, 5 
By: | And 

—* OF pcg. 


to his deftruction by the | 
EEE Sa 


(rg 

-And fist obferve the} — It is HOt impto “4 bi 
modefty of his expreflions | obferve that the 
in regard toKings whom | fometimesin a better tei 
he calls | per than what is imply’d 
Scepter’dTyrants. Obs. p. | in the oppofite column 
ps5. and fays that “” 

The greateft part of 

mankind now are and al- : | 
moftalwayshave been op- | particularly when he de- 

refled by wicked tyrants, | clares that 
called civil rulers, Kings 
and Emperors. Vol. Ser. 


printed 1755. p. 426. 
2ndly. Expreffions in 


he would not willingly 
regard to the eftablifhed | and unneceffarily give 
church of England, its | offence to any perfons 
conftitution, Bifhops and | of that perfuafion (the 


clergy church of England) Obs. 
An enormous hierarchy | p. 175. 
afcending by various gra- That the main atid he 


dations from the dirt to | had in view (in writing his 
the fkies. Obs. p. 155. | Obferyations) was— that 
An hierarchy refem-| of ferving the caufe of 
bling that of the romifh | truth and rightcoufnels—~ 
church, where one great | in diftinétion fromall pri- 
prelate prefides over the | vate party opinions wnat 
whole, with all the infe- | foever.. Obs. p. 174. 
rior religious orders, the 
loweft of which are as it 
were aah in the dirt. 


Obs. 7. Brg 
He ee that one of our | He declares that he is 
Kings far from defiring to  in- 


was Mae aad and duped | flame the paffions of an; 


one fect or party again, 


C6 Far 3 


furious epifcopal zealots | another : fo’ far from ‘it 
of that day. Obs. p. 157. _that he’ would fincerely 
And mentions the bi- | rejoice to be in the lealt 
thops before the revolu- | degree’ inftrumental of 
tion uniting them in the bonds 
The perfecuting anti- | of Chriftian charity, on 
chriftian {pirit. of many | the true plan of theGof- 
prelates before the revo- | pel. Obs. Pk es 
lution. Do. 157. 
And in the foregoing 


page {peaks contemptu- 
oufly of 
Bifhops and their under- 
lings. p. 156. 
In the page before they 
are ftiled 
The mitred lordly fuc- 
ceffors of the fifhermen 
of Galilee. Obs. p. 155. | . 
In the 39th page he fays | ~ Hasa great averfion to 
that before the revolution | controyerfy. Obs. p. 7, 
Epifcopal perfecution [ | “A 
was feconded by royal } 
power ; which condef- | 
cended to be fubferyient 
to the views of domineer~ 
ing prelates. Obs. p. 39. 
In another paflage he When once providence 
fays that fhall have put it in our 
Their unholy zeal and | power to live thus (peace- 
oppreflions, were counte- | ably that is in refpe& to 
nanced by fceptred ty- | our enemies) — we are 
fants, p. 155. wholly inexcufeable—if 
In which latter expreffi- | we fhould turn afide ta 
0p as well as many others | vain jangling amongft our 
of | felyes 


(P98 


of like kind he has reafon | felves, doting about quef 


he fays to think vhat 

He fpeaks the fenfe of 
the far greater, wifer and 
better part of the people 
in N. England. p. 154. 

As to this I have bet- 
ter reafon to think that 
he is widely miftaken,and 
that the greater, wifer and 
better part of N.England 
do entirely difapprove his 
cenforious indecent and 
uncharitable temper. 

Having thus treated 
the bifhops, the church 
itfelf could notexpect bet- 
ter quarter, and accord- 
ingly he has charaéteriz’d 
the church of England, 
the eftablifhed church of 
the nation, of which the 
King himfelf is, under 
» God, the head, which he 
loves and has {worn to 
defend, to be, 

A cruel _perfecuting 
church,—Obs. p. 40. to 
which that he might pre- 
ferve himfelf from the 
cenfure of civil authority 
he fubjoins, 

As that was before the 
revolution. 

We 


I 


tions and ftrifes of words, 
whereof cometh envy, 
ftrife, railings, evil-fur- 
mifings, and perverfe dif- 
putings, inftead of ftudy- 
ing the things that make 
for peace, and the things 
whereby we. may edify 
one another. 


If we fhould heneforth 
live as becomes fellow- 
fubjects and fellow-chri- 
ftians,in the fear of God, 
and brotherly love, &c. 
Serm. on the reduétion 


of Quebec, p. 59, 60. 


The 


7! Ji. 


We may now pafs to 
{ome expreffions deliver'd 
by him from the pulpit, as | 
contained in afermon on! 
the anniverfary of King 
Charles's martyrdom. In 
the preface to which he 
{peaks of Bifhops and the 
clergy in general under 
the title of | 
Imperious Bifhopsand! The oppofite expref- 
reverend Jockies. fions are the language of 
And in the fermon it- | one who fays he would 
felf they are ftiled not bring a railing accu- 
Reverend and right] fation even againft the 
reverend drones ; who| devil, tho’ he were con- 
preach but once a year, | tending with him, much 
and then, not the gofpel | lefs would he bring fuch ° 
of Jefus Chrift, but—| an accufation againft his 
fome favourite point of} brethren. 
church tyranny and anti- Vol. I. Ser. X. p. 354. 
chriftian vfurpation. 
p- 21. 22.! Tam far from intend~ 
Speaking of the King, | ing (fays the Dr.) to de- 
he fays that bafe preaching by f{cold- 
_ He fupported that more | ing, or bringing a railing 
- than fiendarchbifhopLaud | accufation, even againit 
and the clergy of his | wicked andungodlymen. 
{tamp, in all their church | Nor will I forget the apof- 
tyranny andhellifh cruel- | tle’s admonition toTimo- 
plies. . “p42. thy, Rebuke not an elder 
[or aged perfon] but in- 
; treat him as a father: as 
T hope I have not forgot- 
ten what he immediately 
fubjoins, 


There 
K 


: (34.2 


fubjoins,and the younger 
men as brethren. Prac. 
Difc. on the earthquake, 
i Serm. IX. p. 263, 264. 
There feems to have| Theoppofiteareftrange 
been an impious bargain j'expreffions, to fay no 
{truck up betwixt the {cep- | worfe, for one who calls 
treand the furplice for en- | himfelf a minifter of Jefus 
flaving both the bodies | Chrift. . 
and fouls of men. The 
‘King appeared to be wil- 
_ ding that the clergy fhould 
do what they would— 
fet up a monftrous hierar- 
chy like that of Rome— 
a monftrous inguifition | 
like that of Spain or Por- 
tugal—or any thing elfe | 
which their own pride, 
and the devils malice could 
prompt them to. p. 52. | 
Take a further fample 
of this Gentleman’s meek 
fpirit and temper. 
Somecontendand/foam: Would not any ferious 
and curfe their brethren | perfon imagine that the 
for the fake of the atha-| oppofite paflage would 
nafian trinity till tis evi- | have been full as defcrip- 
dent they do not loveand | tive (know it wouldnot 
fear the one living and | have been quite fo rheto- 
true God. Others you | rical) if the words foam- 
will fee ragzng about their | ing, raging, quarrelling 
peculiar notions of origi-| fury and bitternefs ha 
nal fin, fo as to prove | been omitted, or at leaft 
themfelves guilty of actual | if fome fofter terms ha 
tranfereffion. | been 


Cre D 


tranfgreffion. Aboutelec-| been fubftituted to ex- 
tion till they prove them- | prefs his glifpleafure at 
felves reprobates. About | thofe who en the doc~ 
particular redemption till | trines he there mentions. 
they fhew thatthey them- 

felves are not redeemed | 

from a vain converfation. 
You will hear others guar- 
relling about imputed 
righteoufnefs with fuch 
Jury and bitterne/s, as to 
fhew that they are defti- 
tute of perfonail. About 
{pecial grace, fo as to fhow 
that they have not even 
common. About faith 
while they make fhip- 
wreck of a good con- 


{cience. | 
Serm. XI. Vol. I. p. 403. 


It will doubtlefs be dif- 
agreeable to the reader to 
be any longer entertained 
with expreffions and ob- 
fervations fo utterly un- 
becoming a minifter of 
Jefus Chrift, or in truth 
any other difciple of that 
divine mafter. Theauthor 
will here therefore put an 
end tothe fpecimen with | 
the mention of a trifling 
inconfiftency which this | 
otherwife accurate Gen- |! 
jtleman has fallen into in| :} f 
the heat of his argument. | Mr... 


C7 a 
Mr. Apthorp had ob-| It has been too com» 
ferved' that th religious | mon for people in New-' 
ftate of the country is ma- | England to exprefs them- 
nifeftly improved as to its | felves in a manner juftly 
fpeculative doétrines,not- , exceptionable upon thefe 
withftanding the immo- | points (i. e. the principles 
ralities we lament and | he fuppofes the Gentle- 
wifh to reform. After | man had referr’d to) Obf. 
{pending feveral pages! p.92.and in Serm. I. Vol. 
(viz. from 83 to 92.) to| 1. p.16. He fays it is one 
confute this pofition, the | of the chief honors of the 
Dr. concludes as in the ; prefentage, that the prin- 
oppofite column— ciples of religion, particu- 
| larly of religious liberty, 
are better underftood and 
more generally efpoufed, 
than they have perhaps 
been fince the days of the 
apoftles ; it were to’ be 
wifhed that pra@tical chrif- 
tianity, had made progrefs 
in the fame proportion. 
Tus littl contraft is left to fpeak for it felf ; 
but as to the forgoing fpecimen the author prefumes 
the Dr’s. beft friends, muft ferioufly wifh that he 
had expreffed himfelf, not only with more decency 
and refpeét, but more agreeable to the temper of the 
gofpel: Others perhaps who have lefs tendernefs for 
him, will alfo have lefs charity, and be liable to fuf- 
pect that he deceives himfelf, when he profeffes a 
regard for that divine religion which difclaims all 
evil {peaking, railing and reviling, and whofe princi- 
pal charatteriftic is love or benevolence, a principle 
which they may think he notorioufly violatee—— 
Be that as it may, the author is of opinion that the 


Dr. 


CPR.) 


Dr. has no'room to complain of harfh or fevere 


treatment, no not altho’ it fhould be more difagree- 
able than any he has yet met with ; unlefs he will 
be pleafed for the future at leaft to treat mankind 
with more refpe& than he has ufually done, not 
only in his book of obfervations but even in many 
of his fermons. 

THe author cannot perfuade himfelf to conclude 
thefe retle@ions without expreffing his aftonifhment, 
that any gentlemen, tho’ of congregational princi- 
ples, and much more that the reverend gentlemen 
who are the fpiritual guides of that denomination, 
overlooking the Dr’s attempts to undermine the 
fundamental principles of their faith, fhould exprefs 
their approbation of this his performance, which in 
the conduét of it difcovers fo little of the meeknefs 
and gentlenefs of the gofpel. Can you, gentlemen, be 
fo far blinded by prejudice ora party fpirit, as tamely 
to give up thofe eflential doétrines for which you 
have hitherto laudably contended, and which once 
you efteemed your glory? Can you, I fay, cherifh. 
and flatter the man, who has been labouring from 
pulpit and prefs to demolifh the do@rines which 
yout fore-fathers have handed down to you? (while 
yet he pretends to venerate them) thofe doétrines, 
which by way of eminence, you have been wont to 
ftile the doétrines of grace? + Are thefe things of 
lefs confequence than an oppofition to the church 
of England? How is it then that you have com- 
plimented the Dr. with your thanks (for fo I hear 
many of you at Bofton have done) for his- book of 
obfervations, who by his other writings, has been 
_deftroying the fundamentals of your faith? Has he 
not been undermining the dignity and divinity of 
ae the 


} Vol, of Serm, printed 1755, pallim. 


C.F 
the fom of God?+ Does he not deny-and ridicule: 
the doétrine of juftification by faith? calling it: 
confufion and an unintelligible rant, + nonfenfe, t 
gibberith, || mere: jargon, § a means of beguiling 
unftable fouls to their deftruétion, {} an irrational 
unfcriptural doétrine, of pernicious tendency with» 
regard to the lives and manners of men.ff Does 
he not difcard the notion of original fin, and brand 
the doctrine of imputed righteoufnefs with the re- 
proach of nonfenfe? And have you not, gentlemen, 
implicitly countenanced thefe, and the numerous, 
other errors in doérine which are fcatter’d up and 
down his writings, by your unfeafonable compli- 
ments for his late obfervations upon that venerable 
Body of men the Society for the propagation of the 
gofpel, &c. Will not ftrangers, will not every one 
who fhall read the errors which this gentleman has: 
publifhed, naturally conclude, that you, gentlemen,. 
do abet and approve them, who have thus given 
your fanction to this his laft, but not leaft injurious 
performance ?—I fpeak it with grief and concern, 
are you fo carried away with a party fpirit as to 
countenance fuch abufe and mifreprefentation of the 
church of England, while you have not the courage 
to rife up in defence of the Lord Jefus Chrift, and 
the truth of his gofpel Remember who has faid, 
“ he that is afhamed of me and of my words, &c. 
“ of him fhall the Son of Man be afhamed when he 
* cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy 
“* angels,” | 
| Bur 
t See vol. I. ferm. IX. p. 267, 268, 291. Serm. X. p. 341, 342. 


Serm. XII. p. 417, 418. note, but particularly Serm. I. oj 
Chriftian Sobriety, from p. 57 to 68. 


+ Serm. VII. vol. I. p. 173, note. jt Serm. VIII. p. 237. : 
VUI. p. 249. §Do.p. 251. {f£Do. p. 244. BY 


( yo )) 


_ Bur to-return from this digreffion, if it may be 
called one.—Befides the‘errors in doétrine hinted:at 
in the foregoing remarks, the Dr’s reflection’ upon 
‘the Song cf Solomon is fufficient to fhow how eafy 
itis for him to difcard even the facred canon ‘of 
feripture itfelf: Or perhaps it was introduced mere- 
ly for the fake of the witticifm. It would difcover 
however both more wifdom and ferioufnefs to re- 
ferve his drollery for fome lefs important ‘fubjed. 
But no witticifm, nor any thing elfe, wil sjuftify 
the pernicious tendency of the doétrine of annihi- 
Jation, to which he has given'too much countenance 
in the following paflage. Speaking of fuch as die 
in their fins; “ The utmoft they can hope for (fays 
he) is tobe annihilated after {uffering unutterable 
“torments: Tho’ I donot affert, that they can, ac- 
cording 'to the {cripture account, hope for fo great 
“a favor as even this would be, viz. to be utterly ~ 
“blotted out of being! ‘However it muft be con+ 
“ feffed that fome expreffions of {cripture feem, ‘at 
“ firft view, ‘to: countenance this fuppofition.”’t This 
will too greedily be catched at by thofe whochave 
lived in:fuch a manner, as to have'no’better hope in 
their death. It might not be amifs for the Dr. to 
take a review of. his works, and expunge this and 
many other paflages which certainly have a threat- 
ning afpeét upon the religion of Jefus Chrift. 

_ BuT befide the ill confequences to religion, . and 
efpecially among the rifing generation, which may not 
improbably follow from the principles he is labour- 
ing to propagate: If the goyernment enjoy any pri- 
vileges by virtue of their charter, which they are fond 
of retaining; one may be confident that the fpirit 
and temper of the Dr’s writings, fo far asit can be 
: fuppofed 
¢ Ser. Vol. 3. p. 475. 476. note. . 

a a 


C eho 


fuppofed they are publickly countenanced, will be 
attended with no favourable impreffions, where it is, 
the intereft of the province to ftand in a favourable 
light. It were to be wifh’d that this were more 
thought of by fome well difpos’d people, who do 
not appear to be aware of the confequences, which 
fuch improper liberties may produce in regard te the 
civil interefts and privileges of that province. 

As the author firmly believes that this is not the 
general temper of people in the colonies, fo it is 
hoped it will be received at home as the effect of this 
Gentleman’s particular difpofition only, and that of 
two or three of his abettors. 

To conclude, the author apprehends he has now 
JShewn the Dr. to him/elf (to ufe his own phrafe) and 
he hopes has alfo fhewn him to other people. The 
firft with a charitable view to his amendment, the 
latter with a defign to caution others againft being 
mifled. To thefe good purpofes, it will not be im- 
proper to pray, tho’ in the words of the liturgy, 
“ that God would grant unto us all, that we may 
* both perceive and know what things we ought to 
“ do, and alfo may have grace and power Paithinally 
“ to fulfil the fame.” 


A LETTER 


A fhorc Vindication of the Society for the 
Propagation of the Gofpel, Gc. againft 
the Objections, Miftakes and Mifreprefen- 
tations of Dr. Mavuew, in his Obferva- 
tions, on the Conduct of that Society, 


By one of its Members. 
In a LETTER to a FRIEND. 


DearS: TR; 


HE great difficulty I labour under in writing, 
muft be my apology for writing very briefly, and 
attending only to the moft material things. 

It is too evident from the general current of Dr, 
Mayhew’s performance, That, it is his aim to beget a pre- 
judice, and an odium in his readers, againft his antagcnift, 
and againft the church of England, and the Society, from 
confiderations and reflections, either meerly perfonal, or lu- 
dicrous, and often trifling, and few of them, relating to the. 
real merits of the caufe ; which is a praétice quite unbe- 
coming a juff writer, either in the critical, or moral fenfe 
of that character. 

There is one grand impofition upon his readers, which 
runs through the whole, and is, as it were, the burthen of 
his fong, in which, there is not the Jeaft truth, and for which, 
there never was the leaft cround, or foundation, as ever 1 
could learn, viz. That the chief view and endeavour of the 
Society has been to convert presbyterians and congregationa- 
Jifts to the church, to the negleé of Negroes and Indians, 
and the Aeatheni/b colonies, as he calls them . 


L aye 


Cae 


If they,or their miffionaries had done this,they would have 
had infinitely more reafon, and right in what they did, than 
the diffenters from the beginning had, in ufing all poffible 
endeavours, to promote factions, and difafle& people, to the 
eftablifhed church of Exg/and, in all quarters, and make 
-all the profelytes they could, from her communion, to their 
confufed parties and fects, iffuing in downright rebellion : 
‘So that this, is alledged with a very ill grace, by one, 
_derived trom, and who tsa violent abettor of that party. 

It is true, every good churchman muft rejoice, when any 
of ‘our wandering brethren, who have been drawn away, 
from the bofom and communion of the church, or educated 
in prejudice againft it, are reclaimed, and return to the 
unity of the church, and be glad to be~inftrumental, as 
God in his providence gives them opportunity, in recon- 
ciling any of them: But, as the Society was not incorpo- 
rated for that purpofe, nor was it ever their principal aim, 
I believe very few inftances, if any, can be produced, of 
any miffionaries beginning with any diffenter, with a view 
at reclaiming himto the church. I have been long know- 
ing to. the affairs of the Society, and know.of. no fuch 

/inilances. . 

We have indeed been treated with great obloquy by dif- 
Aenters reprefenting us, as little better than roman catholics, 
&c. On thefe occafions we have defended ourfelves, as well 

as we could: and can any body blame us for it? And can 
any reafonable perfon wonder if this fhould fometimes prove 
the occafion of .the converfion of fome fenfible honeft. peo- 
ple? Or if the mecr curiofity of others attending occafio- 
nally on our beautiful and inftruative feryice, fhould be the 
meaus of their being reconciled, when they fee, that it does 
not confift of extempore human invention, but is a wife and 
judicious colleétion from the holy fcriptures? fo that, their 
very Jove to the {criptures, has fometimes led them to love 
the fervice of the church. 

But it is faid, That Dr. Bray, the father of the Society, 
reported, that in the Ma/fachu/etts and Connecticut, there 
was no occafion for the Society to do any thing, as they were 
provided for, in the diffenting way :—I anfwer, I knew Dr. 
Bray very well, he was doubtlefs a very good man, and 

agre 


Ct 8g) 

agree to his report at that time, and fhould have made the 
fame report myfelf: There was then (except at Bo/ton,) 
bur here and there a member of the church of England, 
fcattered about in thefe provinces ; and according to the. 
conftitution of the Society, while there was no congregation 
of the church in thofe parts, the Society had nq occafion, 
to fend any miffionaries thither : But does it at all follow, 

that when there came to be fuch numbers of confcientious, 
members of the church of England, as to make competent 
congregations for worfhip, being not well able to provide for 
a minifter themfelves, that the Society had by their charter, 

no right and bufinefs, to affilt in providing for them, meerly 
becaufe the diffenters in thofe provinces were already pro- 
vided for ? Can any reafon be given, why a con{cientious 
body of church people in thefe provinces, fhould not be 
provided for, as well as in any other province ?—You will 
fay, let them go to mecting, IT anfwer, many of them were 
fo candid, as to go to the mectings, rather than no where, 
tho’ it was very tedious’and difagrecable to them, till they 
grew in numbers, fo as to make competent congregations. 

Yea, but it is reprefented, That the origin of the church, 
in thefe provinces, has been generally owing to faction; 
difcontent with minifters, and about rates, pews, and the 
like, and tho’ the church is the eftablifhed religion of our 
mother country, and in the aét of union, is, (2s Dr. Doug- 
lafs, his favourite author allows) eilablifhed in all the plan- 
tations ; he is pleas’d in bis great good manners, to {peak 
of her in thefe governments, under no better terms, than 
thofe of party and faéion. ; 

How much truth there may be in Dr. Colman’s ac- 
count of the origin of the church, at Newdury and Brain- 
tree, J am not able to fay, and that fome individuals have 
had little better motives in conforming, than thofe mens 
tioned, I will nor deny, and perhaps fome of the mflio+ 
parics have not always ated prudently, and poffibly fome 
may have been in a few inftances too forward ; fuch things 
are common to frail human nature ; however, this I know, 
that the general rule and practice. where I am acquainted, 
have been, to fend male-contents, and perfons liable to 
cenfure, back, to make peace at home, before they came 
: Ove 


“ 


( 848) 


over to us. But, fuppofe fome things a little wrong, is it 
fit, that fo refpeétable a body, as the Society or the church, 
fhould be reproached, with the forwardnefs, or mifconduét, 
of a few individuals ? ; 

Let me, however, give what I know to be generally a 
true account, of the origin of the church in thefe provinces, 

The true caufes, and occafions, of the being and growth 
of fo many congregations of the church of England, in 
thefe provinces, are thefe. 

' 1ft: As the country continued to increafe, and there were 
many acceffions from Great-Britain and Ireland, there were 
among others, many of the eftablifhed church,whocame over 
to fettle in thefe colonies, as well as others, fo that there was 
go years ago, {carce a town of confiderable ftanding.but what 
had fome fcattcring among them, and in fome there were 
feveral families: In Stratford, for inftance, the firft in 
Connecticut that applied to the Society; there were at the 
beginning of this century about fifteen families, and fiye or 
fix more in the neareft towns, that joined with them ; and 
in 1722, when the firft miffion was eftablifhed, there were 
about thirty or forty; now, on fuppofition that the firft 
who fettled in thefe provinces were diflenters generally, 
yet I know no reafon why thefe lands fhould be 
thought fo facred to them, as to exclude the church, nor, 
why church people fhould not be at liberty, to fettle them- 
felves in thefe colonies,as well as in any others ? And if they 
do, who can deny, that they have as good a right to enjoy 
their way of worfhip as their neighbours? And if they 
need, and obtain any charitable affiftance, can any thing 
but envy and malevolence, make fuch a clamour againtt 
it ? But, ; 

2. So the cafe has been, ever fince church people fet- 
tled in thefe countries, many diffenters have~ treated them 
with much clamour and contempt, and frequent difputings 
hhaye arifen, which occafionéd many to procure books, 
wherewith to defend themfelves, fuch as arch bifhop King’s 
inventions of men in the worfhip of God, the London 
cafes, Hoadley againtt Calamy, arch bifhop Potter on church 
government, and fome Hosker’s ecclefiaftical polity, and 
fuch like, And their thus defending themfelyes, oceafioned 

} man 


(5) 
many inguifitive candid diffenters to read thofe books, which. 
reconciled them to the church ; fo that the diffenters them- 
felves by thus cenfuring, and difputing, have occafioned the 
increafe of the church, and I hope it may be truly faid, 
in a judgment of charity, many both of the original church 
people, and of the profelyted diffenters have been fincerely 
con{cientious— Dr. Mayhew indeed, and fome other diflen- 
ters, however differing in fome things, as much, (if not more) 
among themfelves, as either of them from the church, feem 
fo bigotted to their diffenting principles, in one fhape or 
other, and fo full of themfelves, that they fcarce know 
how to imagine, that church people, or any who differ from 
them, can be confcientious ; but furely, any candid and 
indifferent perfons, that know any thing of fuch great and 
good men, as fyoter and Chillingworth, mult allow, that 
it is poflible, for achureh man, upon the foot of Hooker's 
ecclefiaftical polity, and Chilling worth’s demonftration of 
epifcopacy, (to fay nothing of arch bifhop Potier and arch 
bifhop Sharp, and the many others) to be at leaf as con- 
{cientious, as any diflenters in ther way upon the foot of 
any of their various principles. 

gdly. Another thing and what has of late chiefl¥wccafioned 

the acceflion of multitudes to the church, was, the wild en- 
thufiafms that long obtained among themfel ves, on which oc- 
cafion, their own managements were in. many inflances, fo 
extravagant and ridiculous, astended vafily more, 20 drive 
their people into the church, than any thing we ever did tq 
draw them over to it.— Particularly, that monftrous enthu- 
fiafm that was at firtt mightily encouraged by themfelves 
fifteen or twenty years ago, in confequence of Mr, White- 
field s rambling over the country, once andagain, who was 
followed by a great many ftrolling teachers, who propagated 
fo many wild and horrid notions of God and the gofpel, that 

a multitude of people, were fo bewilder’d that. they could 
find no reft to the fole of their foot, till they took refuge in 

. the church, as their only ark of fafety. And many of thefe 
_ wild notions (to fay nothing now of the oppofite extreams of 
 arianifm, focinianifm, and independent-whiggifin) continue 
_ among great numbers to this day, and have occafioned much 
Rot contention among them in fettling minifters, and oftea 
“ee 


( SBR 


the proftitution of difcipline upon the meaneft trifles, which 
have occafioned many people to conclude, that if they muft 
feparate from their former brethren, who are in endlefs con- 
tentions and confufion, their beft way muft be to retire into 
the church, which is in peace.—Now, thefe are all known’ 
facts: Is not Dr. Mayhew then very difingenuous to con- 
ceal them, and afcribe the being and increafe of the church, | 
only to petts and quarrels about pews, rates, and fuch tri- 
fling things, and toa meer fpirit of faétion ? 

But, it is pretended, great mi‘cheifs have befallen the 
country by means of the church, (of which however, he 
gives no proof) ; tothis-I anfwer, certain it is, that great 
advantages have derived from it, even to the diffentes them- 
felves : it has occafioned a great increafe of knowledge, by 
their reading many of our excellent writers, from whom 
they have gained their beft notion’s, and much greater 
corre€tnefs, than they had, both in writing and fpeaking ; it 
has provoked them to emulation, and it is certaia, that 
many of them have much better notions of God and the 
gofpel now, than they had before, and have much improved 
in the knowledge of the fcriptures and the evidences of 
chriftitanity.—Certain it is, that theyare now, much ‘be- 
yond what they were, fifty years ago, and as certain that 
they are greatly beholden to the church, for every thing 
of this kind, wherein they excel themfelves. 

And befides this, in proportion as they have become more 
acquainted with the church, they have much dropp’d their 
great prejudices againft us, and malevolence, and unchari- 
tablenefS towards us, and charity, and good neighbourhood 
have greatly obtained between us ; fo that, if it was not 
for now and then, fuch abufive and uncharitable feribblings 
of a few zealots, fall of very injurious mifreprefentations, 
we fhould foon coalefce, and come into a friendly, bene- 
volent and chriftian temper, of mutual forbearance towards 
one another, and be united in our common weal—I might 
add, that in truth the church has been fo far from med- 
ling ‘in the various contentions in which they have been al- 
moft continually engaged among themfelves, owing to the 
weaknefs of their conftitution, and. their republican fepa-— 
rating and levelling principles, that, to my certain’ know-_ 


Iedge, 


oe 
ledge, it hath in many inftances been a great check upon 
them, and much rather tended to heal and quiet, than ex- 
afperate them—And as to immoralities, 1 am fure, the 
church hath born as faithful a teftimony againft them, in 
every kind, as any of the diffenters have done; {fo that, 
if immoralities have increafed, it is not owing to the in- 
creafe of the church, but to the increafe of mankind here, 
in proportion to which, from the nature of man, immorali- 
ties will abound ; I believe however, it may be faid with 
truth, that in proportion to her numbers, the church can 
fhew, at leaft as many fober, confcientious chriftians, as 
the meetings : I know it to be fo, in many places where I 
am acquainted. 

Now, whether it was to give a fpecimen of the Dr’s 
fine talent at ridicule and declamation, or, from a ftudied 
defign to. fright his readers, with an hideous f{peétre, that 
he might create in them al] the odium and antipathy he 
could againft the church of England, or, whether it 
was a little fir of the old diftraGtion, or, whether after all, 
the true and principal caufe of his. bitternefs againft that 
found branch of the chriftian church may not {till be art- 
fully concealed, I will not take upon me to fay ; but in page 
155 you havea moft hideous outcry, about perfecution, 
hierarchy, tyranny and the like terrible monfters, that made 
fad work, it feems, an hundred, or an hundred and fifty 
years ago,from which,however he allows at Jaft,we havenew 
nothing to fear fince the revolution, from our prefent mild 
princes, and moderate prelates.—Pray, good fir, what then 
was the matter with you, when you made this tragical out- 
cry ? Did you defign to fet a mob upon us ? or what ? 

You know very well, that the conflitution of the church 
is juft the fame now as it was then, and yet fhe abhors per- 
fecution, and tyranny now, (at leaft) as much as you do : 
Why fhould fhe then be charged with the doings of tyran= 
nous courts, or fome perfecuting individuals, fo long ago ? 
or how can fhe be anfwerable for thofe things, which for 
almoft thefe. hundred years have had no exiftence, nor are 
ever like to exift again? or, what fenfe or honefly can 
there be, in raifing thefe old fpeétres, long fince vanifhed 
and gone, never to revive, meerly to blacken the church, 

: and 


Usa 

and render her odious to the prefent age, while in truth the 
church is no more concerned in them, than your party, 
“who you muft needs know, have perfecuted and tyranniz’d 
in their turn, as much, at leaft, as ever the government wh6 
then profeffed the church did: You know that perfecution 
and toleration are merely political things, in which the 
church, as fuch, (being a fpiritual fociety, a kingdom not 
of this world,) is in no wife concern’d : The church is the 
fame; it is the policy of the ftate only, that hath altered, © 
and I readily agree with you, that in putting an end to per- 
fecution, it hath altered much for the better. 

But the goodDr. is ftill terribly diftreffed, about the hierar- 
chy, Jeaft that fhould obtain here,afcending (as he fays, in his 
fine florid way, a-la-mode de independent whig,) a/cending 
4 varicus gradations from the dirt to the fhies / But pray 

r, be fober a littlh—We have no pope! There are with 
us but three orders, bifhops, presbyters and déacons, accord- 
ing tothe model of the pure primitive church, long be- 
fore the leaft ftep was made towards popery. And we 
know that we have ftronger evidence from the fads both 
of fcripture and antiquity, for the moft wife, apoftolical, 
and confequently divine eftablifhment of thefe three orders, 
than you have for infant baptifm, and the firft day fabbath, 
of which you are with us fo juftly tenacious.— Your rea- 
foning upon thefe points, and ours for epifcopacy, from the 
original facts, is exactly the fame, only we have vaftly the 
advantage of you.—If our reafoning for epifcopacy muft 
fall, your’s on thofe points muft much more fall with it ; 
as might be abundantly and inconteflably fhewn, if it was 
now before us.— And we doaverr, we are certainly as 
confcientious in our attachment to our epifcopal form of 
church government, as you can be to your presbyterial, or 
whatever you call ir.—In God’s name, then, what reafon 
can be given, why we fhould not be allowed to enjoy our 
way, as well as you, your’s? We do not envy you, why 
Should you envy and malign us ? 

Pray tell me fir, why we fhould not be allowed in this 
country, to be as perfect in our kind, as you, in your’s ? 
We do not want in the leaft to moleft or oppofe you, in 
yout way, why then fhould you. fo vehemently oppofe 


CC ee our 


Cat Dp 

our being provided for in our’s? You would think it a 
terrible thing indeed, (doubtlefs a degree of perfecution,) 
to be obliged to go a thoufand Jeagues for ordination, if it 
was your cafe: can you then have no feeling for us whofe 
unhappy cafe itis? In truth fir, we do not aim at any thing 

but to live with you in quiet and charitable neighbourhood : 

We have not the leaft defire of an epifcopate that fhould 

have any thing to do with you, or atall interfere with any 

of your proccedings, or, make any alterations among you, 

in church or ftate : We only want bifhops, to ordain, and 
govern our own” clergy, to vifit ovr churches, and to inftrucé 

and confirm our laity : And I defire to know, what harm, - 
fuch a1 epifcopate could do you ? Nay; we do not infift 

upon a bifhop’s refiding in either of your favourite govern- 

ments : Let him live in one of your heathenith provinces : 

We fhould be content to wait upon him for orders, two or 

three hundred miles diftant from you, rather than fail; Why 

then fhould you have fuch terrible apprehenfions ?- 


But the Dr. is moreover in a difinal pannic, left the 
church’s obtaining in this country, fhould be of ill confe- 
quence to it’s political affairs— But why fhould he? 
Pray fir be calm—Is nor this our country, and the native 
country of moft of us, as well as your’s ? Can it then be, 
that it fhould not be as dear to us, as it is to you? Have 
we*not all one common intereft, as to our country’s weal, 
being embark’d in the fame bottom ? Is it not poffible for us, 
each one judging for himfelf, to abound in his own fenfe, 
as to matters of religion, and yet live in love, and be unit- 
ed heart and hand, in promoting the publick weal, and our 
common intere{ts, wherein we are all agreed, and equally 
concern’d ? J can fee no manner of reafon to the contrary, 
or any more danger, le{t we fhould differ about thefe pub- 
lick affairs, than if we were all of the fame fentiments in re- 
ligion : and have we fot been as forward in our country’s 
caufe in the Jate trying times as any of you? Difputes will 
fometimes arife ; But I cannot fee, why they fhould more 
in one cafe, than in the other? You need not be in the leaft 
apprehenfive of the churches being any other wife efiablifh- 
‘ed, than it is already, or that any tefts will obtain in fuch a 

- M country 


(999 


country as this.—Pray fir be eafy, We mean you no harm— 
If you would be only as charitable and peaceable toward us, 
and among yourfelves, as we are heartily difpofed to be to- 
wards you, we might live very quietly and happily together, 
ard there would be no occafion for another Columbus, (as you 
cry out) to explore any other country for you. We are 
neither French, nor Indians, nor Serpents, nor Dragons : 
Why fo dreadfully afraid of being confumed by the flames, 
or deluged in. a flood of epifcopacy? L realy pity you, that 
you fhould fuffer your terrors and paflions fo miferably torun 
away with you! I tell you again, dear fir, we mean you 
no harm; we would only provide for our felves—Pray 
do not be fo terribly frighted !— But O my country, dear 
New-England, fuffer me to aflure you, that you have in- 
finitely more reafon to be afraid of fuch as are no friends to 
a co-effential trinity, and the divinity and fatisfaétion of 
Chrift, (befides other misbeliever’s, and unbelievers, of 
which there are many,) than of thofe who without cenfur- 
ing or aiming to interfere with diflenters, are only defirous 
for themfelves to enjoy the church of England, in its pri- 
mitive purity !— 


But the Dr. infifls that Maffachufetts and Conneéticui 
come not within the Society’s limits by the charter: J 
anfwer, this cannot be maintained, fince they are not ex- 
cepted by the charter, unlefs it can be proved that the con- 
gregations of the church for which the Society provides in 
thofecolonies, would not in the fenfe & words of the charter, 
want, or be deftitute of the adminiftration of God’s wore 
_ and facraments, it the Society did not aflift them: But 
this he does not, nor can he prove. Surely he cannot pre- 
tend that King /i//iam, who introduced the toleration ot 
diflenters, would leave his loving fubjeGis of the church un: 
tolerated, and under the neceflity ef receiving God’s word 
and {acraments contrary to their confciences, or of having 
none.— It muft therefore be his meaning to provide, that 
his loving fubjeéts of the church might enjoy God’s word 
and facraments in thefe colonies, when fuch there are in 
competent numbers, for congregations, as well as in other 

colonies ; 


Wye ie, 

colonies ; and fo the Society (who muft be fuppofed to be 
at leaft as good judges of the meaning of their charter, as 
Dr. Mayhew) have ever underftood it, and when opportu- 
nity offered, have praétifed accordingly, not for the purpofe 
of converting diffenters to.the church, but of providing 
for confcientions people of the church, and who without 
this provifion would have been in danger of as great errors: 
and abfurdities, as thofe of popery, * and not without 
danger even of infidelity itfelf, into which I fear many of 
the diffenters have been temipted by the abfurd notions of 
chriftianity which have been difleminated amongft us. 


Now /a/tly, the great objection is, that the Scciety neg- , 
Jeéts the fouthern colonies, Negroes and Indians. a 


-T anfwer, As to the fouthern colonies, Fir/?, The Dr. 
mutt know, that in Virginia, Maryland avd South Carolina, 
the church is well provided for by law, fo that they are 
out of the queftion—In Sowth-Caralina they are withdrawe 
ing their miffions, as they become vacant.— 


Secondly, As to Georgia, and the Bahama Wflands, pro- 
vifion is made and making for them as faft as may be, and 
as their occafion and apphcation call for. And, 


Thirdly, As to North Carolina (over which he drops a 
pious tear) as far as I can find, ever fince their application 
to the Society, they have been providing for them as often 
as they have been applied to, and as fait as they could find 
gentlemen to undertake miffions, in thofe tedious and un- 
healthy climates; and it appears from the abfira& of 1761, 
that a great progrefs there is made, and making, and the 
Society is very much engaged to provide for them, fo 
that T imagine thofe muft have been diffenters for whom he 
is fo compaffionate. And, 


Fourthly, As to Penfyloania, New-Ferfies and New- 
York, 1 believe no inftance can be produced, where applix  * 
si Cathe n 


® See Mr. Beach's Friendly Expoltulation, jolt publith’d, — 
pege 30, 31. &c, 


C9Ee a 

cation has been made to the Society, that has ever been » 
neglected. Indeed, I am forry to fay, there are fome few” 
places, where no provifion is made for religion, of any fort, 
that haye contracted fuch an indifference to any at all, 
(two of which I myfelf have often urged and engaged my 
endeavours for them) that they could never be prevail’d 
upon to embody themfelves, to build a church, or take 
any f{tep towards applying to the Society for their afliftance, 
who would undoubtedly do for them, even to the neglect 
of New-England. Now to fuch I could wifh the Society 
to fend miffionaries without being applked to, as they 
‘would to ab origine heathen, and 1 truft they will do fo, 
before long, if thofe people do not apply. 


And now, as to Negroes, what could the Society do more 
than it does, and not without fome confiderable faccefs, as ap- . 
pears by the Abftraés—T heir miffionaries every where in- 

~ flruct as many as their mafters will fend, and do inftru& and 
baptize many, and have fome communicants — They have 
feveral catechifts, and Dr. Bray’s affociates, feveral {chools 
(befides that at Barbadoes) who conftantly inftrué their chil- 
dren with good fuccefs ; and-they have fent.one worthy mifli- 
onary to Cape Coa/t Caftle, who laboured there, “nll his. 
health and conilirution were very pear ruined.—. And, 


Lajftly, As to the Indians—Many mifhonaries have tomy 
knowledge endeavoured to convert them, as they have had 
opportunity ; and one in particular placed near a confiderable 
clan of them, endeavoured to reconcile them to chriftianity, 
*ull fome diffenters fo prejudiced them againft him, that he 
could do them no Good —Anad it is well known, that the So- 
ciety, (always ready to take every opportunity) has fent feve- 
ral miffionaries to the A¢chawks, one after another, from the 
beginning, and that the Rev. and worthy Dr. Barclay was very 
_ laborious, with good fuccefs for ten years, inflruéted and 

baptized many, and had a contiderable number of communi- 
cants. It is true, he laboured at fir(t under {cme difficulty, for 
want of an interpreter ; but it was not long ~before he ac- 
quired fo good fkill in their language, as to preach and per- 
form the fervice to their perfec underftanding, and was go- 


ing 


( 93 iy 


ing on with very good fuccefs, till the laft war, about 1745, 
threw them into fuch confufion, and the influence of popifh 
miflionaries, and the wicked infinuations of a certain great 
man in thofe parts, created fuch a difaffection in them, that 
his very life was in much danger ; fo that he was obliged to 
defift.*— However, the Society has ftill a number there not 
to be defpifed, and much more will foon be done ; one thing 
they intend in order to it, is, to maintain a number of lads to- 
gether at King’s College in New-York, to be qualified for 


miffionaries among them. 


Upon the-whole, It may be truly faid, what could the So- 
ciety do more, that it has not done, and all intirely agreeable 
to the true intention and meaning of their charter. I cannot 
therefore, imagine but that the candid and ferious, even 
among the diilenters themfelves, muit be fenfible that Dr. 
Mayhew has moft unjuftly charged the Society, and that 
his own friends can {carcely be able to withold a blufh for 
him, at his indecent, as wel! as injurious treatment of that 
venerable body, and of the church, which is a part of the 
national conftitution ; and alfo, at his mean and unworthy 
pérfonal inveétives againft the modeft and very deferving 
gentleman, who has been the innocent occafion of provoking 
his riotous pen.—But 1 muft have done.—I would only 
add, that the worthy Dr. Wigglef/evorth’s tetter in the 165th 
page of Dr. Mayhew’s book, much deferves the attention 
of the government both here and in England.— 


I am, 
Sir, with much Efteera, A 


Your very hearty Friend and humble Servant, 


* So partially and injurioufly, not to fay Falfly, does Mr. Smith in his 
hillory of New York reprefeot this affair. 


MAR 27 52 
NOV 20'62 
‘1 


pEC ~ 
APR 2 


Date DUE 


Div.S. 266.06 c22l¢ 440906 


ZSVE867C0d 
LH UA 


